IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:22.12. 2009
CORAM:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR
Writ Petition No. 17985 of 2006
K.Geetha .. Petitioner
Vs
1. State of TamilNadu,
Secretary to government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai.9
2. Director of School Education,
Chennai.6
3. District Educational Officer,
Virudhunagar.
4. Hindu Girls High School,
rep. by its Secretary,
Watrap,
Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District. . . . Respondents . . .
Prayer: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.959223/D1(2)/05 dated 16.12.2005 on the file of the second respondent herein, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to forthwith approve the appointment of the petitioner herein as Headmistress(High School) w.e.f. 12.07.2004 based on the proposal dated 23.07.2004 of the fourth respondent.
. . .
For Petitioner : Mr. V.R.Rajasekaran
For respondents : Mr. V.Manoharan,
Govt.Advocate
. . .
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the procedings in Mu.Mu.No.95923/D1(2)/05 dated 16.12.2005 of the second respondent and to direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress.
2. The petitioner joined the services of the fourth respondent-School as Tamil Pandit in the year 1979. A vacancy for the post of Headmistress arose on 23.05.2004. Considering the claim of two persons, the school selected the petitioner and promoted her to the post of Headmistress on 12.07.2004. On 23.07.2004, the fourth respondent-School sent a proposal to the third respondent, District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar to approve the appointment of the petitioner as HeadMistress. But the said proposal was rejected and returned. The fourth respondent-School thereafter sent a revised proposal on 15.09.2005 enclosing four certificates in support of the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress, which are as follows:
1. B.Lit Tamil (Madurai Kamaraj University) Certificate No.186/October 1978.
2. M.A. Tamil (Madurai Kamaraj University) Certificate No.505077 dated 22.11.1999.
3. Pandit(Tamil) Certificate (Madras University Certificate dated 30.11.1977)
4. Diploma in Teaching-Tamil (Annamalai University Certificate dated 02.12.1978.)
In the proposal it was stated that the petitioner was working in the school for more than 26 years and the petitioner is having the requisite qualification which is equivalent to B.Ed Degree, for being appointed to the post of Head Mistress. The District Educational Officer, the third respondent did not accede to the proposal. Thereafter, the fourth respondent-School forwarded the proposal to the Director of School Education, the second respondent, who after considering the report of the District Educational Officer dated 10.11.2005, rejected the application for approval for appointment stating that in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulations) Rules 1974, for the post of HeadMistress of a High School, the following qualification is required:
Name of the Post Qualifications 1. Head Master (High Schools) 1.B.A. or B.Sc or its equivalent and B.Ed or B.T or L.T and Trained Teachers Certificate collegiate grade. 2. Should have worked as teacher in a recognized schools for a period of not less than five years after obtaining B.T or its equivalent degree.
According to the Director of School Education, in the proposal of the school, reliance has been placed on the diploma certificate, namely, Diploma in Teaching (DIT) Tamil issued by the Annamalai University, which cannot be considered as equivalent to B.Ed or B.T degree and since the petitioner does not hold requisite degree in B.Ed as required under the rules, the proposal was rejected. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the present writ petition has been filed by the school.
3. A counter has been filed by the third respondent, the District Educational Officer reiterating the stand taken in the impugned proceedings, in particular, it is pointed out that the Diploma in Teaching (Tamil) issued by the Annamalai University is not equivalent to B.Ed or B.T.
4. Heard the counsel for petitioner and Government Advocate. The impugned proceeding is required to be interfered with by this Court on a short ground, that the authority while considering the claim of the petitioner has failed to take into consideration the four documents submitted along with the proposal dated 15.09.2005, in particular, Document No.3 the Pandit Certificate issued by the Madras University dated 30.11.1997. The fact that Pandit Certificate is equivalent to B.Ed or B.T degree has not been disputed in the counter affidavit. But, the said Certificate has not been considered by the authority.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon Annexure V, Rule (IV)(3) wherein, in case of appointment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant in Languages (Tamil) by transfer from the post of Tamil Pandit, the pandit training was considered as equivalent to B.T. or B.Ed degree. It is submitted that in the same analogy, in so far as Head Master of a High School is concerned, a specific clause provides for more than 5 years experience in teaching after obtaining B.T or B.Ed or equivalent degree, the case of the petitioner, who is having more than 5 year’s experience, should have been considered for approval for the post of Head Mistress. In this case, the respondents 2 and 3 have proceeded on the basis that the diploma certificate issued by the Annamalai University cannot be termed as equivalent to B.T or B.Ed Degree. The Pandit Certificate issued by the Madras University has not been considered when the recommendation of the School Committee is there in paragraph 9 of the proposal, that Pandit training has to be taken into consideration. In this view of the matter, the impugned proceedings deserves to be set aside for not considering the relevant materials, particularly, the Pandit Certificate issued by Madras University.
6. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for considering the proposal of the fourth respondent-School based on the Pandit Certificate issued by Madras University dated 13.11.1977 and also taking into consideration the other factors as has been narrated in the proposal dated 15.09.2005. The second respondent, who passed the impugned proceeding is directed to reconsider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioner and the school committee either in person or through counsel to place all relevant materials that may be required. No order as to costs.
Index:No
Internet:Yes 22.12.2009
PAL
To
1. State of TamilNadu,
Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai.9
2. Director of School Education,
Chennai.6
3. District Educational Officer,
Virudhunagar.
4. The Secretary,
Hindu Girls High School,
Watrap,
Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
R.SUDHAKAR,J.
Pal
W.P. No. 17985 of 2006
Dt.22.12.2009