R. Ayyar vs The Government of Tamilnadu

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The petitioner was engaged as a part-time Vocational Instructor by the Parent-Teacher Association in the Government Kallar Higher Secondary School, Pappapatti, Madurai District, on 06.10.1995 and he was paid consolidated pay of Rs. 400/- per month by the said Association.

Subsequently, the petitioner made a claim that as per G.O.Ms. No. 834, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 23.09.1994, he is entitled for absorption, on permanent basis, as vocational instructor in the said school. But, his claim was not accepted. Therefore, he filed an Original Application in O.A. No. 3386 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal issued a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and to pass final order. But, that order was not considered and therefore a contempt application was filed by the petitioner. That petition was subsequently closed. The petitioner filed yet another Original Application in O.A. No. 1210 of 2001 seeking a direction to relax the rules relating to the post of Vocational Instructor and to appoint him. That application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 26101 of 2003 before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, by order dated 25.07.2006, directed the respondents to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 23.11.1999, in the light of the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3386 of 1997. On due consideration of the said representation, the same was again rejected. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No. 11143 of 2006. By order dated 22.01.2009, this Court set aside the order but, directed the 2nd respondent therein to consider the matter afresh. Accordingly, the matter was considered and rejected again. In this regard, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 17, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department, dated 09.04.2009, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 11768 of 2009. In that writ petition, this Court issued a direction to consider his request in the light of G.O.Ms. No. 35, School Education Department, dated 09.02.2007. Having considered the same, the Government again passed an order in G.O.Ms. No. 7, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department, dated 15.02.2010. Challenging this order, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also perused the records, carefully.

At the outset, I wish to emphasize that the petitioner was not employed by the Education Department As a matter of fact, admittedly, he was engaged only by the Parent-Teacher Association as a part-time instruction on consolidated pay of Rs. 400/- per month and the same was paid only by the Association. G.O.Ms. No. 834, dated 29.09.1994, upon which much reliance was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got nothing to do with such a person engaged by Parent-Teacher Association. In that Government Order, the Government created the post of Vocational Instructors on regular time scale of pay with effect from 30.06.1985., 1387 such posts were created. The Government Order further states that the said posts should be filled-up only by following the procedure stated therein, through Employment Exchange. Therefore, as rightly stated in the impugned Government Order, the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 834 cannot be extended to the petitioner. If once the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 834 is not extended to the petitioner, there is no other Government Order which enables the petitioner to seek such absorption on permanent basis. Had he been engaged by the Education Department, the matter may require some more consideration in the light of several Government Orders in respect of absorption. The petitioner was never engaged by the Education Department but, he was engaged only by the Parent-Teacher Association. Therefore, the petitioner''s grievance that he has not been absorbed is not correct. Though it is so pathetic that the petitioner has been working as part-time instructor for so many number of years, on a paltry sum of Rs. 400/- per month, in the absence of any statutory provision, this Court cannot issue any direction to the respondents to absorb him as a part-time vocational instructor, on permanent basis. In such view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.