Case Note & Summary
The petitioner Justin Raj was appointed as Craft Teacher (Agriculture) on 18.01.1988 at St. Peter's R.C. Higher Secondary School, a Christian minority institution that was receiving government aid. The government stopped aid to minority institutions from 01.11.1987, prompting the school management to file writ petitions including W.P.Nos.415 & 436 of 1989 seeking restoration of aid. The Madras High Court allowed those writ petitions and this was affirmed by the Supreme Court, with a direction to disburse salary to employees of minority institutions. Despite serving until his superannuation on 31.05.2010, the petitioner's appointment was never approved by the educational authorities, and he received no salary for 22 years. He sent a representation on 14.08.2014 seeking approval and disbursement of arrears of salary and benefits. When no action was taken, he filed W.P.(MD)No.16779 of 2014, which was allowed on 28.03.2018 with a direction to the fourth respondent District Educational Officer to consider his representation. The fourth respondent passed the impugned order dated 28.08.2018 rejecting the claim on the grounds that prior permission from the Director of School Education was not obtained before appointment and that the post of Vocational Instructor was sanctioned only for the individual, not the school, and had expired. The petitioner argued that G.O.(Ms)No.271 dated 22.02.1990 had been issued pursuant to the court order creating posts, similarly placed employees' appointments had been approved, and he was being denied documents. The respondents contended that the temporary sanction for the post lapsed on 01.11.1987 with no continuity, making the appointment in a non-sanctioned post illegal. The court examined the Division Bench order dated 24.03.2008 in W.P.Nos.415 & 436 of 1989, which specifically directed educational authorities to consider the eligibility of teachers and the continued right of the institution to receive aid in light of government orders. The court noted that in a later batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD)Nos.21334 to 21343 of 2018), a single judge had already declared that the State was in contempt of the Division Bench order and issued mandamus to implement it within four weeks. Applying the same reasoning, the court found the facts of the present case squarely covered and held that the rejection order was unsustainable. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order dated 28.08.2018 and directed the respondents to implement the Division Bench order within eight weeks, thereby granting the petitioner entitlement to approval of appointment, salary, and other terminal benefits. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Approval of Appointment in Aided Minority School - Binding Effect of Division Bench Orders - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioner, appointed as Craft Teacher in 1988 in a minority school, sought approval of appointment and salary after superannuation; the rejection order was quashed as the State had failed to comply with the Division Bench order dated 24.03.2008 in W.P.Nos.415 & 436 of 1989 which directed consideration of eligibility and continued right to aid; Held that the State is in contempt and the Division Bench order must be implemented within eight weeks, thereby entitling the petitioner to approval of appointment and disbursal of monetary and terminal benefits. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the fourth respondent denying approval of the petitioner's appointment as Craft Teacher (Agriculture) is valid, and whether the petitioner is entitled to approval of appointment and disbursement of salary and other monetary and terminal benefits in light of the judgment in W.P.Nos.415, 436 of 1989 dated 24.03.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.40 dated 04.03.2014
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Impugned order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the fourth respondent is quashed. Respondents are directed to implement the order of the Division Bench in W.P.Nos.415 & 436 of 1989 dated 24.03.2008 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Binding effect of Division Bench orders
- right to approval of appointment in aided minority institution
- consequences of non-compliance with court directions
- contempt of court for ignoring judicial orders
- entitlement to salary and terminal benefits after superannuation upon judicial affirmation
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 256
Citation not available, 2025:MHC:405
For Petitioner: Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan; For R1 to R4: Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader; For R5: Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar, for M/s.Isaac Chamber.
1.The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District, at Nagercoil. 4.The District Educational Officer, Thucklay Education District, Thucklay, Kanyakumari District. 5.The Correspondent, St.Peter's R.C.Higher Secondary School, Chekkal, Thirparappu (Post), Kanyakumari District.
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 Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the rejection order dated 28.08.2018 and direct approval of appointment and disbursement of salary and other monetary and terminal benefits.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of impugned order in Na.Ka.No.3439 m 1/2018 dated 28.08.2018 passed by the fourth respondent, and direction to respondents to approve petitioner's appointment and disburse salary and other monetary and terminal benefits in light of W.P.No.415, 436 of 1989 dated 24.03.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.40 dated 04.03.2014.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's appointment as Craft Teacher was not approved; after the earlier writ petition W.P.(MD)No.16779 of 2014 was allowed with a direction to consider representation, the fourth respondent rejected the claim without considering service records and based on improper grounds.
Previous Decisions
W.P.(MD)No.16779 of 2014 allowed on 28.03.2018 directing fourth respondent to consider petitioner's representation. Division Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.Nos.415 & 436 of 1989 dated 24.03.2008 directed educational authorities to consider eligibility and continued right to aid; affirmed by Supreme Court. In W.P.(MD)Nos.21334 to 21343 of 2018, mandamus was issued on 27.01.2022 to implement the Division Bench order within four weeks.
Issues
Whether the rejection order dated 28.08.2018 is valid in law, particularly in light of the Division Bench judgment in W.P.Nos.415 & 436 of 1989 and G.O.Ms.No.40 dated 04.03.2014, and whether the petitioner is entitled to approval of his appointment and consequential benefits.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that G.O.(Ms)No.271 dated 22.02.1990 was issued based on court order for creation of posts, similarly placed persons' appointments were approved, and the fourth respondent did not furnish documents; he served 22 years without salary and would lose pension benefits if appointment not approved.
Respondents argued that the sanction of post of Craft Instructor (Agriculture) expired on 01.11.1987 with no continuity, the appointment was in a non-sanctioned post and illegal, and prior permission from Director of School Education was not obtained; hence petitioner not entitled to monetary benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
The State is bound to comply with the Division Bench order dated 24.03.2008 in W.P.Nos.415 & 436 of 1989 which directed educational authorities to consider eligibility and continued right to aid. Non-compliance amounts to contempt. Therefore, the rejection order passed by the fourth respondent without considering the service records and in contravention of the Division Bench order is unsustainable. The direction to implement the Division Bench order within eight weeks is necessary to grant the petitioner his rightful benefits.
Judgment Excerpts
It is seen from the records that the fifth respondent School has come under the control of District Educational Officer, Thiruvattar, as per G.O.Ms.No.101, School Education Department dated 18.05.2018.
The facts of the present case is squarely applicable to the above decision of this Court.
Hence, the orders passed by the fourth respondent dated 28.08.2018 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to implement the order of the Division Bench in W.P.Nos.415 & 436 of 1989 dated 24.03.2008, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Procedural History
Petitioner appointed as Craft Teacher (Agriculture) on 18.01.1988 in fifth respondent school, a Christian minority institution. Government aid to school stopped from 01.11.1987. School management filed W.P.Nos.415 & 436 of 1989; Division Bench allowed on 24.03.2008, affirmed by Supreme Court. Government issued G.O.(Ms)No.271 dated 22.02.1990 creating temporary posts. Petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2010. Sent representation on 14.08.2014 seeking approval and benefits. Filed W.P.(MD)No.16779 of 2014; allowed on 28.03.2018 with direction to fourth respondent to consider representation. Fourth respondent passed impugned order dated 28.08.2018 rejecting claim. Petitioner filed present writ petition in 2019. During pendency, another batch W.P.(MD)Nos.21334 to 21343 of 2018 was filed and disposed on 27.01.2022 issuing mandamus to implement Division Bench order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226
