Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE CORRESPONDENT versus THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Correspondent v. The Director of Elementary - W.P.No.8766 of 1999 [2002] RD-TN 261 (16 April 2002)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 16/04/2002

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ

W.P.No.8766 of 1999

1. The Correspondent,

TDTA Middle School,

Kurumbalaperi

Keelapavoor,

Tirunelveli District.

2. M.Paul Singh

Pre-Vocational Instructor

TDTA Middle School,

Kurumbalaperi. .. Petitioners Vs.

1. The Director of Elementary

Education,

Madras - 6.

2. District Elementary Educational

Officer, Tirunelveli.

3. The Additional Assistant Educational

Officer, Keelapavoor.

4. The Principal,

District Teacher Training Instt.,

Munainchipatti,

Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus as stated therein.

For petitioners : Mr.P.Peppin Fernando For respondents : Mr.Arvind Subramanian, Govt. Adocate.

:O R D E R



Petitioners have filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to pay the salary of the second petitioner from 1.5.1995 to 31.12.1996, to pay the withheld salary from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1998, to pay the monthly salary from 1.1.19 99 and consequently to direct the third respondent to issue certificate, enabling the second petitioner to continue to undergo the training of Pre-vocational Instructor which is conducted in the District Teacher Training Institute, Munainchipatti, which was started on 5.4.199 9.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners would submit that the TDTA Middle School is a minority school; that originally, there were classes upto V Std.; that the first respondent granted recognition for VI Std. in the year 1988-89, VII Std. in the year 1989-90 and VIII Std. in the year 1990-91 by his order dated 20.2.1991, which recognition was confirmed by the second respondent and continued till 31.5.1994 as per the order of the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, dated 14.6.1993; that again the recognition was granted upto 30.11.2000 by the Chief Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli by order dated 3.2.1999 and now the School has sufficient strength in VI to VIII Std.; that since the petitioner School was in need of a part-time Carpentry Vocational Teacher, the second petitioner was appointed in leave vacancy from 7.7.1987 to 20.8.1987 ; that subsequently, he was appointed as Temporary substitute in TDTA Middle School, Madathuachampadi from 13.10.1987 to 30.11.1987 and after that, he was appointed as Probationary part-time Carpentry Prevocational Instructor in TDTA Middle School, Kurumbalaperi on 1.6.1988 till 31.5.1990; that these appointments were approved by the authorities concerned and that subsequently, the second petitioner was appointed as a permanent Carpentry Pre-Vocational Instructor, on and from 1.6.1988, which was approved by the third respondent on 23.3.1995.

3. The petitioners would further submit that the second petitioner was paid salary upto 30.4.1995 and he was not paid salary from 01.5.1 995 to 31.12.1995, even though he worked in the first petitioner school during that period; that no notice was given to the second petitioner regarding the stoppage of salary, nor was he informed the reasons as to why the salary was stopped for the above said period, which is violative of the principles of natural justice; that he was appointed on a monthly salary of Rs.190/= and now the salary got enhanced to Rs.375/- p.m; that the School was deprived of the benefit of having a teacher being paid by the Government; that when the appointment of the second petitioner had been sanctioned and approved by the District Educational Officer, Tenkasi by order dated 24.7.1991, there is no justification in stopping his salary by the respondents; that on a communication made by the first petitioner to the Assistant Primary Educational Officer, Keelapavoor on 15.4.1997 requesting to pay the salary of the second petitioner and to convert his post into a full time job, the salary was paid from 1.1.1997 to 31.12.l997; that subsequently, he was paid salary from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1998, but when annual grant was paid to the petitioner's school, the salary paid to the second petitioner from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1998 was recovered from the maintenance grant, without any prior notice, which is illegal; that in this regard, the second petitioner sent a communication to the Additional Assistant Educational Officer, Pavoorchathram, for which there was no reply; that thereafter, the second petitioner participated in the training held by the Government for Pre-vocational teachers, for a period of three months on and from 5.4.1 999; that while so, the Principal, District Educational Teacher Training Institute sent a letter dated 22.4.1999 to the second petitioner, asking him to submit a report from the Assistant Educational Officer as to who was paying his salary, whether the Government or the Management, and only then he would be permitted to continue his training; but, since the authority concerned refused to give such a certificate to the second petitioner, his salary was not paid by the Government and as a result, he was not able to continue his training and on such grounds, the petitioners would seek to allow the writ petition.

4. No counter has been filed by any of the respondents. However, the learned Government Advocate (Education) would appear on their behalf and argue the matter on instructions.

5. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the appointment of the second petitioner was approved by the third respondent on 23.3.1995. Citing the order passed by the second respondent dated 24.7.1991 in which the appointment of the second petitioner has been approved as a Part-time Carpentry Pre-vocational Instructor, the learned counsel would contend that there is no justification of the part of the respondents in stopping the salary of the second petitioner; that on a communication made by the first petitioner dated 15.4.1997 requesting the authority concerned to pay the salary of the second petitioner and to convert his post into full time job, the salary was paid from 1.1.1997 to 31.12.1 997 and thereafter, from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1998; that initially, the second petitioner was not paid salary from 1.5.1995 to 31.12.1996, even though he worked in the first petitioner School during that period; that no notice was given to the second petitioner regarding the stoppage of the salary nor was he informed the reason as to why his salary was stopped, which is violative of the principles of natural justice; that he was appointed on a monthly salary of Rs.190/- and now the same was enhanced to Rs.375/=; that the School was deprived of the benefit of the teacher being paid by the Government; that when the annual grant was paid to the first petitioner School, the salary paid to the second petitioner from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1998 was recovered without any prior notice, which is illegal; that a communication was sent to the third respondent, but there was no reply. Hence, the writ petition for the reliefs extracted supra.

6. In reply, the learned Government advocate (Education) would submit that the first petitioner School is an unaided school and a minority institution; that the Government have given recognition for Standards I to V; that subsequently, they were granted permission to start VI, VII and VIII Standards on conditions that : (i) no aid would be given to the School, (ii) they have to deposit one month's salary of all the teachers and (iii) on 17.3.1995, by a communication, it was intimated that any teacher cannot be sent for training without prior permission of the third respondent and that no financial implication would be borne by the Government; that what happened was that since the first petitioner being an unaided School, the second petitioner was not paid salary from 1.5.1995 to 31.12.1996, but prior to that period, he had been paid and that for the said period, he was not paid because of audit objection.

7. Continuing to argue, the learned Government advocate (Education) would further say that the second respondent was only a Part-time Pre-vocational Instructor, a sanctioned post, for whom the Government have not granted approval; that his name was included as an untrained teacher and would cite a letter dated 20.2.1991, in which a condition was imposed to the effect that for three years, there would not be any aid for him; that subsequently, there was an audit objection on the ground that the aid had not been extended by the Government and that it is for the School to pay the salary.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Education) would further submit that under G.O. Ms.No.62 dated 9.3.1997, the Government ordered to conduct a training programme for the Part-time pre-vocational Instructors and subject to the satisfactory completion of training, it was stipulated that these Part-time Instructors could be absorbed as Secondary Grade Teachers, if vacancy arose; that to undergo training, certain minimum general qualifications such as : (i) one should have passed Xth Std., (ii) one should have possessed the Government Technical Examination Certificate and (iii) one should have worked in a sanctioned post as a Painting Pre-vocational Instructor; that what happened was that the School has to give a relieving certificate to undergo training, which has to be certified by the third respondent; that this endorsement was not made by the third respondent for the second petitioner, and therefore, aid was not granted to the School and hence it is only the School which has to pay the salary.

9. In consideration of the pleadings by parties, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that the first petitioner School is a minority institution and it was granted recognition by the Government to have classes upto VIII Std. from V Std., one by one. The petitioners' case is that since the School is in need of a Part-time Carpentry Pre-vocational Instructor, they appointed the second petitioner in the leave vacancy from 7.7.1987 to 20.8.1987 and thereafter as a temporary substitute in the Middle School from 13.10.1987 to 30.11 .1987 and thereafter, as a Probationary Part-time Carpentry Prevocational Instructor in the Middle School, Kurumbalaperi, from 1.6.1988 to 31.5.1990 with the approval of the authorities concerned and the second petitioner was appointed as permanent Carpentry Pre-vocational Instructor on and from 1.6.1988 which was approved by the third respondent on 23.3.1995.

10. The case of the petitioners' is that the second petitioner was paid salary only upto 30.4.1995 and not from 1.5.1995 to 31.12.1995, even though he worked in the first petitioner School without prior notice, which is violative of the principles of natural justice; that there is no justification in stopping the salary of the second petitioner; that in spite of many communications requesting to pay the salary, he was paid salary from 1.1.1997 to 31.12.1997 and subsequently from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1998, but the salary paid for the period from 1 .1.1998 to 31.12.1998 had been recovered from the maintenance grant of the first petitioner School and for their communication, no reply was sent and hence the writ petition.

11. Though no counter has been filed on the part of the respondents, it would be strongly argued by the learned Government Advocate ( Education) that neither the first respondent is entitled to have such facility of the Pre-vocational Instructor, nor could the second petitioner claim it as of right; that he should be paid the salary that had not been paid previously and which had been later recovered from the maintenance grant of the first petitioner School; that the second petitioner was also not possessed of the required qualifications as elaborately argued on the part of the learned Government Advocate ( Education) for the respondents, which is extracted supra and that there had also been a strong audit objection for the payment of the salary to the petitioner as a temporary Pre-vocational Instructor; that the requirements of the Government Order for being considered to it, since he should have passed Xth Std., should have possessed Government Technical Examination Certificate and should have worked in a sanctioned post as a Painting Pre-vocational Instructor and ultimately, the relieving certificate issued by the School to undergo training should be certified further by the third respondent and this endorsement was not made by the third respondent, as a result of which, he was not able to successfully complete the training required for permanent appointment. On such grounds, it would be argued on the part of the Government that the aid was not extended to the School since it is a minority institution and not eligible for such aid, and that the salary has to be paid to the second petitioner only by the first petitioner School.

12. In the above facts and circumstances, since the first petitioner is a minority institution and the appointment of the second petitioner being temporary, without proper sanction by the Government and on audit objection, the Government had to not only stop the aid, but also recover certain amounts from the maintenance grant of the first petitioner on objection by the auditor and further, the second petitioner is also not having the qualification to be appointed as the Prevocational Instructor, and since the case of the second petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the Government Order, it has to be decided that the second petitioner, either for claiming the salary for the period from 1.5.1995 to 31.12.1996 or claiming to pay the withheld salary from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1998 or further to pay the monthly salary from 1.1.1999, does not become entitled to, and it is only the first petitioner School which appointed the second petitioner which has to pay the same to the second petitioner and the same is held accordingly. Further, the second petitioner is also not entitled to insist that the third respondent be directed to issue the Certificate, thus enabling him to continue the training of Pre-vocational Instructor.

In result, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed as such.

However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

V.KANAGARAJ, J.

16.04.2002

gs.

To

1. The Director of Elementary

Education,

Madras - 6.

2. The District Elementary Educational

Officer, Tirunelveli.

3. The Additional Assistant Educational

Officer, Keelapavoor.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.