Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, D. Dayrvin, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order dated 27.05.2016 signed on 06.06.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent (Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil) and to direct the 3rd respondent to approve his appointment as Physical Director from 04.06.2007 instead of 12.06.2009, and to disburse back wages and monetary benefits for the period from 04.06.2007 to 11.06.2009. The petitioner had completed B.P.Ed. in 2005 and M.P.Ed. in 2005-07 from Annamalai University. He was appointed as Physical Education Director in Pius XI Higher Secondary School by the 4th respondent (Correspondent) on 04.06.2007, following the retirement of the previous incumbent, A. Gracy. The school, initially a High School, was upgraded to Higher Secondary School in 1981-82. At the time of appointment, the total student strength was 1439, with 369+569 students in 9th to 12th standards, exceeding the 400-student threshold required under G.O. for the post of Physical Director. The 3rd respondent had passed an order approving the appointment only from 12.06.2009, which the petitioner challenged. The court considered the facts and submissions, including that the petitioner had been continuously working since 2007 and that the school had the requisite student strength. The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order and directing the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment from 04.06.2007 and to disburse back wages and monetary benefits for the period from 04.06.2007 to 11.06.2009.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment Approval - Back Wages - Physical Education Director - The petitioner sought quashing of order dated 27.05.2016 signed on 06.06.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent and direction to approve appointment from 04.06.2007 instead of 12.06.2009 with back wages. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to approval from the date of initial appointment and back wages for the period in question, as the school had sufficient student strength and the appointment was valid. (Paras 1-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to approval of his appointment as Physical Director from the date of his initial appointment (04.06.2007) instead of 12.06.2009, and consequently to back wages and monetary benefits for the period from 04.06.2007 to 11.06.2009.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.05.2016 signed on 06.06.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent is quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the date of his appointment namely 04.06.2007 onwards instead of 12.06.2009 and also to disburse the back wages and monetary benefits of the petitioner for the period from 04.06.2007 to 11.06.2009.
Law Points
- Appointment approval
- back wages
- physical education director
- school education department
- G.O. requirements
- student strength
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 128
Mr. C. Muthusaravanan (for petitioner), Mr. V. Omprakash (for R1 to R3, Government Advocate), Mr. M. Veilkaniraju (for R4)
1. The Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai; 2. The Joint Director, School Education Department, Chennai; 3. The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil; 4. The Correspondent, Pius XI Higher Secondary School, Thoothoor
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of an order and direction for approval of appointment and back wages.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 27.05.2016 signed on 06.06.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent and direction to approve appointment from 04.06.2007 instead of 12.06.2009 and to disburse back wages and monetary benefits for the period from 04.06.2007 to 11.06.2009.
Filing Reason
The 3rd respondent passed an order approving the petitioner's appointment only from 12.06.2009 instead of from the date of his initial appointment on 04.06.2007, and the petitioner sought correction and back wages.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to approval of his appointment as Physical Director from the date of his initial appointment (04.06.2007) instead of 12.06.2009?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to back wages and monetary benefits for the period from 04.06.2007 to 11.06.2009?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he was appointed on 04.06.2007 after the retirement of the previous incumbent, and the school had sufficient student strength (above 400) as per G.O., making him eligible for the post from that date.
Respondents (R1 to R3) opposed the petition, but the court found merit in the petitioner's case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to approval of his appointment from the date of initial appointment and back wages for the period in question, as the school had the requisite student strength and the appointment was valid.
Judgment Excerpts
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to order made in Na.Ka.No.5432/AA2/ 2015 dated 27.05.2016 signed on 06.06.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequentially direct the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the date of his appointment namely 04.06.2007 onwards instead of 12.06.2009 and also direct the 3rd respondent to disburse the back wages and monetary benefits of the petitioner for the period from 04.06.2007 to 11.06.2009.
The brief facts of the case are as follows : (a) The petitioner have completed his B.P.Ed., in Annamalai University during the year 2005 and completed his M.P.Ed., in the same University during the year 2005– 07. He was appointed as Physical Education Director in Pius XI Higher Secondary School by the fourth respondent.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed W.P(MD) No.24531 of 2016 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court challenging the order dated 27.05.2016 signed on 06.06.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent (Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil) which approved his appointment only from 12.06.2009 instead of 04.06.2007. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 23.01.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
