9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment dated March 18, 2008 passed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court whereby it dismissed writ appeal preferred by the appellants and affirmed the order dated December 4, 2006 of the Single Judge directing the 1st appellant herein to sanction one post of Junior Assistant to the Respondent No. 1 from June 1, 1994. 3. Amala Annai Higher Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as, `AAHS School') was originally a middle school. AAHS School was upgraded as high school from academic year 1988-89 w.e.f. June 13, 1988. All the posts of the middle school were absorbed in the high school. At the time of upgradation of the school from middle school to high school, the strength ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommunication dated July 3, 1998 was not challenged by the school, although further representations were made. After about seven years, the management of the school filed another writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, Madurai, praying for a direction to the government of Tamil Nadu to sanction one post of Junior Assistant to the school from the academic year 1991-92 and approve the appointment of the incumbent who was appointed to that post and confer all consequential benefits. 6. The state government and its functionaries stoutly opposed the writ petition and, inter alia, set up the defence that at the relevant time, the strength of school was below 300 and, therefore, the school was not entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w, the judgment of the Division Bench affirming the order of the Single Judge cannot be sustained for more than one reason. In the first place, the management of the school had already filed writ petition in 1997 praying therein that the state government and its functionaries be directed to consider their representation dated January 20, 1997 for the grant of one post of Junior Assistant and in furtherance thereto, the state government, after hearing the school, rejected the representation on July 3, 1998 indicating the following reasons : At the time of sanction of posts G.O. Ms. No. 50 Education dated 20-1-95 as per the norms issued in G.O.Ms. No. 340 Education Dated 1-4-92 the strength of your school during 1990-91 was below 300. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the eligibility for post for the schools in question (opened in 1987-88 and earlier) Thus, G.O.Ms. No. 340 dated April 1, 1992 containing norms for sanction of posts is applicable for the high schools opened in 1987-88 and earlier. In the present case, the school was upgraded to high school in 1988-89. 12. Thirdly, the Division Bench as well as the Single Judge overlooked and ignored sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 1977 which reads : Payment of monthly staff grant shall be made only in respect of qualified and admissible teachers actually employed in minority schools whose appointments have been approved by the concerned authorities according to the number of posts sanctioned to the institutions concerned. Admittedly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
