P.K.Padmavathy v. The State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 15.6.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARWrit Petition No.36130 of 2003 P.K.Padmavathy. ... Petitioner vs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Educational Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2. The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai - 600 006.3. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Namakkal.4. The Secretary, Thiruvengada Vilas Middle School, Rasipuram, Namakkal District. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents toratify the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in ThiruvengadaVilas Middle School, Rasipuram, with effect from 01.06.1995 and todisburse to her pay and allowances from 01.06.1995 till this datewith all consequential service and monetary benefits.For Petitioner : Ms.Prasanna Devi for Mr.M.Ravi.For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.A.Suresh, Government Advocate.-----O R D E RThis Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamusdirecting the respondents to ratify the petitioner as Secondary Grade https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Teacher in Thiruvengada Vilas Middle School, Rasipuram, with effectfrom 01.06.1995 and to disburse to her pay and allowances from01.06.1995 till this date with all consequential service and monetarybenefits.2. The writ petitioner in this case joined the fourth respondentschool as a Pre-Vocational Teacher (Weaving) in June, 1995.According to the petitioner, she has been continuously working in thefourth respondent school, however, no salary has been paid by thefourth respondent school. The request of the petitioner forratification of the appointment through proper channel and therepresentation to the Chief Minister's Special Cell was consideredand rejected by the District Elementary Educational Officer in hisproceedings Na.Ka.No.5737/B2/98 dated 20.11.1998 stating that theappointment was not made by calling for candidates from theemployment exchange and the fourth respondent institution has notfollowed the rules of Communal Rotation. It is further stated by theauthority that the status of the fourth respondent school in respectof its claim for linguistic minority status is pending before thecivil court and consequently the case of the petitioner cannot beconsidered at that point of time. 3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that inthe case of another teacher, Thiru Selvakumar, who was appointedprior to the petitioner, the case was considered by the respondentschool authorities and his appointment was ratified subject to theresult of the suit pending before the civil court with regard to thefourth respondent school's claim for linguistic minority status. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that thesuit filed by the fourth respondent school claiming linguisticminority status was dismissed on 3.3.2003. Fourth respondent schoolwas directed to approach the Government and seek appropriate relief.By order dated 10.9.2003, in W.P.No.17129 of 2003, challenging theshow-cause notice dated 3.6.2003 issued by the third respondent, thisCourt passed the following order:-"3. I am of the view that it would meet theends of justice if a direction is issued to thethird respondent not to proceed further on theshow cause notice until or otherwise a final orderis passed on the representation dated 6-5-2003said to have been filed before the second andfourth respondents. It is submitted by thelearned Senior Counsel Mr.Badhsha appearing forthe petitioner that the State Minority Commissionhas also recommended the petitioner institution asa minority institution. Therefore, while passingorders on the representation of the petitionerdated 6-5-2003, the respondents are directed to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ take into consideration of the recommendation somade by the minority commission. It is open tothe respondents to proceed further on the basis ofthe order to be passed on the representation ofthe petitioner dated 6-5-2003." Consequent to this direction, after a long period of time and afterconsidering the order passed by this Court cited above, theGovernment has issued G.O.Ms.No.91, School Education (X2) Departmentdated 31.03.2009 as follows:-@(i) 10?9?2003 md;W brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk; W.P.No.17129/2003?,y; ,uhrpg[uk; brsuhc&;ouh fy;tp epWtdk; tH';fpa jPh;g;gpd; mog;gilapy;. me;epWtdk;6?5?2003 ehspl;l fojj;jpy;; nfhhpa[s;sthW. ,uhrpg[uk; brsuhc&;ouh fy;;tpmwf;fl;lis elj;Jk; jpUnt';fl tpyh!; eLepiyg; gs;sp bkhHpthhprpWghd;ikapdh; fy;tp epWtdk; vd;W Miz btspaplg;gLfpwJ/(ii) murhiz (epiy) vz; 214. gs;spf; fy;tp (vf;!;2) Jiw ehs;3-11-2008?d;;go ,g;gs;spf;F muR Miz btspapLk; ehspypUe;J Ie;JMz;LfSf;F ,g;gs;spf;F rpWghd;ik jFjp tH';fg;gLfpwJ/(iii) ehkf;fy; khtl;lk;. ,uhrpg[uk; jpUnt';fpl tpyh!; epjpa[jtp bgWk;eLepiyg; gs;spapd; eph;thfj;jhy; epakdk; bgw;w Mrphpah;f;s bjhlh;e;J gzpg[hpa[k;. c&Pyh nldpay;. ,ilepiy Mrphpah; kw;Wk; bg/,/gj;khtjp. ifj;bjhHpy;Mrphpia Mfpa ,UtuJ gzp epakdj;jpw;F Vw;gspg;g[ bra;Jk; Mizbtspaplg;gLfpwJ/@5. The grievance of the petitioner is that she having beenappointed as a secondary grade teacher in the fourth respondentschool, her appointment should be approved by the competentauthorities and she will be entitled to all consequential service andmonetary benefits. At that time when the writ petition was filed,the authorities have not approved her appointment. The appointmentof the petitioner was not considered by the authorities as thefourth respondent school's claim with regard to linguistic minoritystatus was not decided in view of the pendency of the civil courtproceedings. 6. The learned Government Advocate referred to the G.O.Ms.No.91School Education(X2) Department dated 31.3.2009 and stated thatconsequent to the passing of the G.O. as above, the claim of thepetitioner and other teachers will be considered by the appropriateauthorities and suitable orders will have to be passed with regardto the claim for salary and other service benefits. Therefore,necessary direction could be issued to the authorities to passappropriate orders keeping in mind the G.O.No.91 School Educationdated 31.3.2009 granting the linguistic minority status to the fourthrespondent school. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. Earlier order of this court passed in W.P.No.17129 of 2003 on10.9.2003, restrained the authorities from proceeding further in thematter until the representation of the fourth respondent school wasconsidered. Now that the representation has been considered andG.O.Ms.No.91 School Education(X2) dated 31.3.2009 has been passed,there can be no impediment for the respondent school authorities toconsider the claim of the petitioner on merits. 8. In the result, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to passappropriate orders with regard to the claim of the writ petitionerfor service and monetary benefits in the light of G.O.Ms.No.91School Education (X2) dated 31.3.2009, within a reasonable period oftime preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. Nocosts. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrartsTo 1. The Secretary to Government, Educational Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2. The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai - 600 006.3. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Namakkal.1 cc To Mr.M.Ravi, Advocate, SR.235051 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.23222 W.P.No.36130 of 2003BV(co)SRA(25/6/2009)