M.Kannan. Vs. the Director of School Education, and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
prayer: this writ petition came to be numbered under article 226 of the constitution of india for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus by way of transfer of o.a.no.4187 of 2000, to call for the records on the file of the fist respondent in connection with the orders passed by him in his proceedings na.ka.no.111743/w26/99, dated 22.12.1999 and quash the same and direct the respondents to give the petitioner secondary scale of pay as per government orders issued in g.o.ms.no.834, dated 23.09.1994 and g.o.ms.no.358, dated 18.08.1997......learned government advocate for the respondents.2. the petitioner was appointed as single part-time vocational teacher in r.s. government higher secondary school. his appointment was approved with effect from 01.12.1992 by the third respondent by an order dated 05.07.1993.3. according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner possessed qualification for appointment to the post of vocational teacher.4. the government issued g.o.ms.no.834, education, science and technology (hs.ii) department, dated 23.09.1994 and also issued g.o.ms.no.358, elementary education department, dated 18.08.1997 appointing the part-time vocational teachers as secondary grade teachers, even if they did not possess qualification, by sending them for training.5. the government also issued another.....

Judgment:
1. Heard Mr.S.Selvathirumurugan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.C.Devi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was appointed as single part-time vocational teacher in R.S. Government Higher Secondary School. His appointment was approved with effect from 01.12.1992 by the third respondent by an order dated 05.07.1993.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner possessed qualification for appointment to the post of vocational teacher.

4. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.834, Education, Science and Technology (HS.II) Department, dated 23.09.1994 and also issued G.O.Ms.No.358, Elementary Education Department, dated 18.08.1997 appointing the part-time vocational teachers as Secondary Grade Teachers, even if they did not possess qualification, by sending them for training.

5. The Government also issued another G.O.Ms.No.680, Education, Science and Technology (VE) Department, dated 20.09.1996 approving the appointments of fully qualified Vocational Instructors, who were appointed contrary to the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.991, Education Department, dated 16.07.1990.

6. Without taking note of the aforesaid Government Orders, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 22.12.1999, stating that since the petitioner was appointed contrary to G.O.Ms.No.991, Education Department, dated 16.07.1990, his appointment could not be approved. The impugned order is contrary to para 3 of the G.O.Ms.No.680, Education, Science and Technology (VE) Department, dated 20.09.1996. Para 3 of the said G.O.Ms.No.680 is extracted here-under:- "The Government after examining the matter, based on the recommendations of the Director of School Education, have decided to approve the appointments of 235 fully qualified Vocational Instructors made against the Government Order second read above, relaxing the provisions of the said G.O. (irrespective of whether they have been approved by the Chief Educational Officers earlier, or not) and regularise their services as Single/Double part-time Vocational Instructors from the date of issue of this order. However, the Director of School Education shall ensure that all the above candidates are working in the approved courses."

7. In these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the same is quashed. The first respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for approval of his appointment and also for appointing him against a full-time Secondary Grade Teacher post as per G.O.Ms.No.834, Education, Science and Technology (HS.II) Department, dated 23.09.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.358, Elementary Education Department, dated 18.08.1997. If already the petitioner's appointment was not approved and he was not placed in full-time employment, the first respondent is further directed to complete the exercise within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.