Case Note & Summary
A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the order of the fourth respondent, District Educational Officer, which rejected approval of the petitioner’s appointment as Craft Teacher (Agriculture) in an aided Christian minority school, and for a direction to disburse salary and terminal benefits. The petitioner was appointed on 18.01.1988 and superannuated on 31.05.2010. The school had been receiving government aid until 01.11.1987 when aid was discontinued. The management and similarly placed institutions filed writ petitions, and the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P.Nos.415 & 436 of 1989, by order dated 24.03.2008, directed the educational authorities to consider the eligibility of teachers and the continued right of the institution to receive aid in light of government orders. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision. Despite the order, the petitioner’s appointment was not approved. He made representations and earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.16779 of 2014, which was allowed with a direction to consider his representation. The fourth respondent then passed the impugned order dated 28.08.2018 rejecting the claim, citing that the temporary sanction for the Craft Instructor post expired on 01.11.1987, the petitioner did not work in a sanctioned post, and prior permission for appointment was not obtained from the Director of School Education. The petitioner contended that similarly placed persons had been approved, that G.O.Ms.No.271 had created temporary posts, and that the Division Bench order entitled him to approval. The respondents maintained that the appointment was illegal due to a non-sanctioned post and lack of prior permission. The court noted that the facts were squarely covered by an earlier decision in W.P.(MD)Nos.21334 to 21343 of 2018 dated 27.01.2022, where it had directed implementation of the Division Bench order dated 24.03.2008, observing that the State was in contempt. The court held that the fourth respondent’s order disregarded the binding judicial order and quashed it. It directed the respondents to implement the Division Bench order in W.P.Nos.415 & 436 of 1989 within eight weeks, thereby allowing the writ petition without costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Aided Minority Schools - Approval of Teaching Staff Appointments - Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - The petitioner, a Craft Teacher appointed in 1988 in a Christian minority aided school, challenged the rejection of his appointment approval after attaining superannuation. The court found that the rejection was based on an expired temporary sanction and lack of prior permission, ignoring a binding Division Bench order dated 24.03.2008 directing authorities to consider eligibility. Held, the impugned order is quashed and respondents directed to implement the Division Bench order. (Paras 2, 5-10). B) Constitutional Law - Certiorarified Mandamus - Quashing of Administrative Orders - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - When an administrative order fails to consider binding judicial precedents and the petitioner's service records, a writ of certiorarified mandamus lies to quash it and to direct compliance with the earlier judicial orders. Held, the fourth respondent's order was arbitrary and liable to be quashed; mandamus issued to approve appointment and provide benefits within eight weeks. (Paras 5, 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the fourth respondent's order rejecting petitioner's claim for approval of appointment and disbursement of salary was legal and whether the petitioner is entitled to relief in light of the judgment in W.P.No.415, 436 of 1989 and G.O.Ms.No.40 dated 04.03.2014
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.08.2018 is quashed. 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 eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Approval of appointment of teaching staff in aided minority institutions
- compliance with Division Bench orders
- entitlement to salary and benefits upon approval
- temporary sanction of post does not ipso facto make appointment illegal if continuing under court orders
