S. Amala Selva Mari vs The Director of School Education College Road, Chennai 6, The Chief Educational Officer Sivagangai District, Sivaganga, The District Educational Officer Devakottai, Sivaganga and Kandaramanikam M.A.P. Girls High School Kandaramanikam, Sivaganga District

Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru

The petitioner, who was working as a teacher in the fourth respondent/Girls High School, Kandaramanikam, Sivaganga District, has come

forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge a written endorsement made by the third respondent/District Educational Officer,

Devakottai dated 16.11.2007 as well as the written endorsement made by the second respondent/Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District

dated 16.11.2007. The present prayer of the petitioner is that the returning of the application made by the petitioner was illegal and, therefore, after

setting aside the said office noting, she should be appointed as Headmistress of the fourth respondent/school with effect from 30.9.2005 with all

consequential benefits. The writ petition, after several adjournments, was admitted on 29.4.2009. In the application for interim direction, only

notice was ordered. Subsequently, the application was dismissed for not complying with the office objection regarding the service of the notice by

a self-working order dated 4.11.2009. On notice from this Court, the third respondent, namely the District Educational Officer, Devakottai, has

filed a counter affidavit dated 20.3.2008 together with supporting documents.

The stand taken by the third respondent was that the school in which the petitioner was working was mismanaged and, therefore, direct

payment system was introduced by the Director of School Education vide proceedings dated 25.7.1990. By the said order, as the educational

agency of the school was not functioning properly, the salary was directed to be paid by the office of the Inspectress of Girls Schools.

The direct payment system was resorted to in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 881, Education Department, dated 4.6.1979. By the said government

order, the State Government permitted the Director of School Education to authorise the District Educational Officers to attend the limited items of

work in case of ordering of direct payment system. The limited functions given to them were to sanction leave to teachers; to sign applications for

teachers provident fund advance, festival advance, etc.; to sign papers relating to teachers provident fund (admission, transfer and closures); and to

sign pension papers of teachers to fix pay of teachers. It was also further provided for relieving of teachers consequent upon the resignation and

retirement as per rules; and to appoint substitutes in the vacant posts consequent on the leave vacancies, etc., purely on temporary basis.

As the very power itself has been conferred in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973

and the Rules framed thereunder, more particularly in terms of Rule 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974

read with Annexure I, the power that has been conferred on the educational authority is only under special circumstances to make direct payment

to the teachers of the school. Otherwise, under the provisions of the Act, the management is neither suspended nor taken over by the State

Government.

There is a specific provision for suspension of a management in terms of Section 18-A of the Act, wherein the State Government can suspend

the management for a period not exceeding two years and appoint a Special Officer. Similarly, u/s 34 of the Act, the management of the school

can be taken over in the absence of invoking the power u/s 18-A of the Act. The maximum period of such take over of the management shall be

altogether five years in the aggregate. Therefore, the Act does not contemplate replacing the management by the Government either in case of

direct payment system or in case of suspending the management u/s 18-A of the Act or in case of taking over the management u/s 34 of the Act.

All the three provisions are only temporary and, therefore, in the counter affidavit, very correctly the respondents have stated that there is no

power conferred on them to promote any person.

It is now brought to the notice of this Court that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the State Government has issued G.O. (4D) No. 8,

School Education Department, dated 22.10.2009, wherein and by which the State Government exercising the power u/s 18-A of the Act has

suspended the management for a period of one year and appointed the District Educational Officer, Devakottai as Special Officer. Even as per the

above government order, the term of the District Educational Officer, Devakottai would have come to an end by 21.10.2010.

When the petitioner sent a representation to the District Educational Officer and Chief Educational Officer, she has only stated that she was

working as an in-charge Headmistress and, therefore, she should be regularised in the said post. Since the fourth respondent/school is a private

school governed by the Act, any promotion can be done by the School Committee and in the absence of the same by the Special Officer who was

there for a period of one year. The authorities while returning the application of the petitioner have merely stated that under the provisions of the

Act while the direct payment system is in force, there is no provision for granting promotion for teachers. In the absence of any powers being

conferred on the authorities, the writ petition seeking a direction to consider her case will not arise. Hence, the writ petition is misconceived and

bereft of legal reasons. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.