Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJ.W.P.No.13892 of 2010 V.Manimekalai Ramanathan .Petitioner -versus 1.
The Government of Tamil Nadu rep.
by Secretary to Government School Education Department Fort St.George, Chennai 9 2.
The Director of School Education College Road Chennai 600 006 3.
The Chief Educational Officer Chennai District Chennai 600 015 4.
The District Educational Officer North Chennai Chennai 600 008 5.
The Shri Shudhadwaita Vaishnavi Higher Secondary School represented by its Secretary 30, E.12, Agraharam Chennai 600 003 .Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioner as Tamil Pandit for a period from 04.10.1995 to 19.02.1997 in the fifth respondent school as qualifying service and add the same to the service rendered by the petitioner for a period from 20.02.1997 to 31.08.2006 when the petitioner retired from service, for the purpose of pension and other terminal benefits without reference to the letter No.13506/D2/2000-3 dated 21.6.2001 of the fiRs.respondent and to direct the respondents to send the pension proposal to the Accountant General, Chennai for the purpose of sanction of pension and other terminal benefits and to grant pension and arrears of pension.
For Petitioner :: Mr.R.Saseetharan For Respondents :: Mr.A.Kumar Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4 No appearance for R5 ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by Mrs.V.Manimekalai Ramanathan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to count the service rendered by her as Tamil Pandit for a period from 04.10.1995 to 19.02.1997 in the fifth respondent school, namely, Shri Shudhadwaita Vaishnavi Higher Secondary School, Chennai and add the same to the service rendered by the petitioner for the period from 20.02.1997 to 31.08.2006, for the purpose of pension and other terminal benefits without reference to the letter No.13506/D2/2000-3 dated 21.6.2001 issued by the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, the fiRs.respondent with a further direction to the respondents to send the pension proposal to the Accountant General, Chennai for the purpose of sanction of pension and other terminal benefits.
2.
The claim of the petitioner, as submitted by the learned counsel, clearly indicates that she was appointed through employment exchange as Tamil Pandit in the fifth respondent-Shri Shudhadwaita Vaishnavi Higher Secondary School on 4.10.95 in the vacancy that arose due to the retirement of one Mr.V.Varadhakrishnan on 31.5.95.
After she was appointed, her appointment was also approved from 20.2.97.
But the grievance of the petitioner is that although the petitioner was appointed through employment exchange in the sanctioned post that was vacated by one Mr.V.Varadhakrishnan on his retirement from 31.5.95, there cannot be any justification whatsoever for the official respondents to ignore to add the period of service from 4.10.95 to 19.2.97 for the purpose of pension.
In support of his submissions, he has also placed on record two of the judgments of this Court.
The fiRs.one is an unreported order passed by a Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.92 and 93 of 2008 dated 6.1.2010 (Government of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Chennai and two others v.
B.Ravichandran and others).wherein it has been clearly held that once the appointment of a person in a sanctioned post is made in accordance with law, no prior permission from the Director of Collegiate Education is required, based on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28396 dated 29.3.2006.
One another reported judgment of this Court in the case of R.Mohan v.
Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chennai and another, 2006 Writ L.R.480 also repeats the same principle holding that a person, on being appointed, has subsequently got his appointment ratified even if it was irregular, such irregular appointment, having been ratified, would definitely confer a right on that person to get his appointment ratified from the date of initial appointment.
On this basis, he prayed for allowing the writ petition.
3.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the District Educational Officer, Chennai North.
The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, opposing the prayer, urged this Court to reject the prayer on the ground that when the appointment of the petitioner was approved on 20.2.97, again asking the weightage of service from the date of appointment till the date of approval will create administrative chaos, as similarly placed persons also will make out applications and that will unsettle the position attained by the other persons.
When the petitioner was appointed in the fifth respondent school as Tamil Pandit in the vacancy that arose due to the retirement of one Mr.V.Varadhakrishnan, who retired on 31.5.95, the fifth respondent school had sent the proposal, which was received by the third respondent and thereafter permission was granted to fill up the post by way of direct recruitment.
But the petitioner's appointment was made on 4.10.95 and the same was approved on 21.2.97.
Therefore, the prayer for adding the period of service from the date of appointment till approval should be rejected.
4.
This Court is not impressed by the arguments advanced by the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
In fact, there is no sound reason given in the short counter affidavit filed by the official respondents.
Admittedly, the appointment order clearly shows that the petitioner Tmt.V.Manimekalai was sponsored by the employment exchange to the post of Tamil Pandit that has occurred on the eve of retirement of Mr.V.Varadhakrishnan, a Tamil Pandit, who was relieved from the said post on 31.5.95.
The order further shows that the petitioner, on being appointed, should join immediately by producing a medical fitness certificate and she will be placed on probation for a period of two years from the date of her joining and she should also abide by the rules and regulations of the school.
Further the said order of appointment also makes it clear that the said appointment is subject to the approval of the District Educational Officer, Madras North.
Therefore, when the petitioner was appointed through employment exchange to the post of Tamil Pandit, which is a sanctioned post that was vacated by her predecessor Mr.V.Varadhakrishnan on 31.5.95, this Court finds justification and merit in the prayer of the petitioner to add the period of service from the date of her appointment till the date of approval.
In the same line, my view is also supported by two of the orders passed by this Court.
As highlighted above, in an unreported order passed by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.92 and 93 of 2008 dated 6.1.2010 (Government of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Chennai and two others v.
B.Ravichandran and others).when a similar issue came up for consideration, this Court, accepting the order passed by the learned single Judge holding that once the appointment of a person in a sanctioned post is made in accordance with law, no prior permission from the Director of Collegiate Education is required, directed the educational authorities to give weightage of service from the date of appointment till the date of approval.
Similarly, one another reported judgment in the case of R.Mohan v.
Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration and others reported in 2006 Writ Law Reporter 480 also goes one step further to say that even if any irregular appointment was made and subsequently the same had been ratified, such irregular appointment would definitely confer a right on the petitioner to get his appointment ratified from the date of initial appointment.
In view of the above, the writ petitioner is entitled to succeed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for.
No costs.
Index : yes 06.06.2014 Internet: yes ss To 1.
The Secretary to Government School Education Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009 2.
The Director of School Education College Road Chennai 600 006 3.
The Chief Educational Officer Chennai District Chennai 600 015 4.
The District Educational Officer North Chennai Chennai 600 008 T.RAJA, J.
ss W.P.No.13892 of 2010 06.06.2014