BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05/10/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.8603 of 2010 and Cont.P.(MD)No.516 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,2 & 2 of 2010 W.P.(MD)No.8603 of 2010: D.Thayalan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Theni District. 4.The District Educational Officer, Theni District. 5.Sri Krishnaiyer Higher Secondary School, Rep.by its Headmaster. ... Respondents
Prayer
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the order of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.04019.A3/2009 dated
Nil.08.09 and its consequential order dated 22.06.2010 and quash the same as it
is arbitrary and illegal and in consequence to direct the respondents to absorb
the petitioner for the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) in the 5th respondent
School.
Cont.P.(MD)No.516 of 2010:
D.Thayalan
… Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mr.Selvakumar,
The Chief Educational Officer,
Theni District.
2.Mr.Kubendran,
The District Educational Officer,
Theni District.
5.Sri Krishnaiyer Higher Secondary School,
Rep.by its Headmaster.
… Respondents
Prayer
The Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Court, to
take contempt proceedings against the 1st respondent for wilfull disobedience of
the order dated 05.07.2010 made in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2010 in W.P.(MD)No.8603 of
2010 and punish him in accordance with the provision of the Contempt of Courts
Act.
!For Petitioner … Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan
^For Respondents… Mr.S.C.Herold Singh,G.A.
:COMMON ORDER
The petitioner is working as a B.T. Assistant Mathematics in the 5th
respondent School. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd respondent, the
Chief Educational Officer, Theni District, dated 22.06.2010, the petitioner has
come forward to file the present Writ petition.
2.By the impugned proceedings, the third respondent informed the School
management that in view of the students strength of the school assessed for the
year 2009-2010 academic year, the staff strength has been determined in the
Annexure to the impugned order. It was stated that in the said School, two
teachers have become surplus in the post of Graduate Assistant. It was also
stated that consequent upon the order passed by the 3rd respondent, a
consequential proceedings dated 22.06.2010 was issued redeploying the petitioner
who was a B.T. Assistant from the 5th respondent School to Thiruvalluvar Higher
Secondary School, Kudaloore.
3.Apparently, the school management is not aggrieved by the said order and
even the learned counsel who appearing for the 5th respondent states that they
are not aggrieved by the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1078
of 2005 and if the petitioner is not redeemed, it is also a jeopardise the other
teachers getting salary as ordered by the Government. However, the learned
counsel for the petitioner contended that the staff strength fixed by the
respondents is illegal and there is no surplus teacher in the said school, if
the calculation is made in terms of the actual student strength.
4.It is not clear as to how this Writ petition is maintainable that too by
a school teacher against the staff strength fixed by the Department and in the
absence of the school management. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated
that there is no school management at present as there is a civil litigation is
going on before the Civil Court with reference to the control over the
management. Since his client was redeployed, he can be an aggrieved person.
5.It must be noted that the redeployment scheme have been considered by
the Government so as to assess the teacher become surplus and being sent out by
the management. In view of the training and scale, their services can be used
in some other school and necessary provisions has been incorporated under
Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.
But for the enabling provisions and the consequential Government Orders,
ordering redeployment to a teacher working in a private school, would have been
rendered surplus, he will be sent out of the employment. Whereas, the present
scheme contemplates that they are being absorbed in some other needy school
without detrimental to the salary, status or any other terminal benefits.
6.This Court has consistently held that in the matter of grant in aid or
in the matter of assessment of staff strength, a teacher cannot be aggrieved
person. The relationship between the teacher and the school is in terms of a
contract only and grant in aid is only an enabling provision by the State to
compensate the management for running the school.
7.In the present case, even the 5th respondent on instruction states that
the petitioner is the junior most B.T. Assistant in Mathematics and therefore,
there is no further grievance that some of the juniors have been retained,
overlooking the seniority of the petitioner. In the absence of any legal or
enforceable right and the petitioner not having suffered any legal infirmity.
The present Writ petition challenging the impugned proceedings of the 3rd
respondent cannot be maintained. Hence, the Writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed.
8.Pending the Writ petition, this Court ordered interim stay in
M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2010. Since the stay was not obeyed, the Contempt petition came
to be filed. The contempt petition has been filed against the 3rd respondent
since this Court has found that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the
Writ petition. As there is no illegality in the redeployment order, there is no
contempt made out and hence, the Contempt petition stands dismissed.
9.If the petitioner joins in the new transferred school, the interregnum
period must be regularised since the petitioner had the benefit of an interim
order and that the Writ petition is now being rejected on grounds of locus
standi. Hence, the authorities are directed to regularise the interregnum
period. But such steps will be taken only if the petitioner joins at the new
station within one week from the date of receipt of the order and submit a
report accordingly.
nbj
To
1.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Theni District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Theni District.