The Church of South India, Kanyakumari Diocese vs The Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Others

Manmohan Singh Liberhan, C.J.—The appeal is preferred against the order dated 3-11-1997, in W.P. No. 10789 of 1992, directing the

Appellant to make representation to the appropriate authorities for sanctioning of the teacher''s posts.

Undisputed facts in the writ petition run thus:

The Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) sought directions to the Respondents through W.P. No. 8153 of 1987 for recognition of its

school and sanctioning of six teachers posts with effect from 1st June, 1983. The Hon''ble single Judge, vide order dated 18-2-1991, while

allowing the writ petition, directed the Respondents to consider the prayer of the Petitioner for granting recognition to the school and sanction six

posts of teachers. Respondents, in order to comply with the directions of the Hon''ble Judge, sanctioned only two posts in accordance with G.O.

Ms. No. 370 (Education Department) dated 7-11-1992. Petitioner challenged the said sanction. The Hon''ble single Judge, vide impugned order

dated 3-11-1997, directed the Petitioner to make representation to the appropriate authorities for the sanction of the posts claimed.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant prayed that in view of the stand taken by the Respondents and having passed the order already sanctioning

two posts and on a number of times the Petitioner was compelled to approach the court for appropriate reliefs, it would be a futile exercise, apart

from causing delay in rendering justice as the teachers were working without salary since 1983, by directing them to again make a representation to

the appropriate authorities.

We find force in the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner. In view of the admitted facts that the Petitioner has spent

almost two decades and has been to the Apex court as against the interim directions given by this Court, in compliance of which the Respondent-

State had sanctioned only two posts, though for a period of only three months, the prayer for consideration of the sanction of the posts and

recognition of the school was allowed on 18.2.1991. though with effect from 1-6-1983, even if 18-2-1991 is taken as the date on which the

Respondents are required to consider the case for recognition, merely issuance of subsequent Government Order on 7-4-1992, on the face of it

would not be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. Consideration of the decision for sanctioning the posts which has come into

being much later in time when the case of the Petitioner was required to be considered is, on the face of it, an extraneous consideration, which the

State cannot be permitted to rely upon and drag on the litigation and determine the rights of the Petitioner as on the date and not when they were

required to determine the rights of the Petitioner.

In view of the observations made above, the appeal is allowed. The Respondents are directed to pass appropriate suitable orders keeping in

view the G.O. Ms. No. 250 (Education Department) dated 29-2-1964, within a period of eight (8) weeks, from today. In case Petitioner is found

to be entitled to have the required number of teachers posts as per provision or Government order, which was in force on 18.2.91 the Respondent

shall sanction the same within a period of three months and release the grant and other consequential benefits to which the Petitioner is entitled to in

accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Connected C.M.P. No. 17970 of 1997 is dismissed.