Timmu Reddy vs The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli-9, The District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi at Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli-1 and Papanasam Labour Welfare Association, Higher Secondary School

Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru

In the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 08.12.2009, in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.264 of 2009, dated 23.10.2009, within a time frame.

When the matter came up on 28.04.2010, notice of motion was ordered. Accordingly, the third respondent is served and represented by counsel.

It is seen from the records that the petitioner was appointed as Waterman cum Gardener in the third respondent aided private school at Vikramasingapuram known as Papanasam Labour Welfare Association Higher Secondary School. It is the case of the petitioner that his service is illegally terminated and therefore, he raised an industrial dispute and the said dispute came up before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli as I.D.No.12 of 1996. The Labour Court, by its award, dated 20.07.2010 dismissed the I.D and did not grant any relief. In the award, the Labour Court recorded that the petitioner was appointed in the place of waterman cum gardener when he went on medical leave for the period from 05.11.1993, to 02.01.1994 and it was indicated that it was a substitute vacancy as a temporary employee he can be terminated at any time. After the petitioner sent out, he raised a dispute long after the so-called non employment. Therefore, the Labour Court held that as per the Government Rules, before vacancy arise within 90 days then a post can be filled up with reference to the employment exchange. But not long after the petitioner''s so called unemployment in the year 1994 and the dispute itself was taken up for hearing in the year 2000. The Labour court specifically found that the petitioner was not appointed regularly and he is not entitled for any relief.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.2056 of 2001 to challenge the award. That writ petition was also dismissed by the learned Judge of this Court on 31.10.2008. The learned Judge did not interfere with the finding recorded by the Labour Court. It is also observed that merely because he was appointed on a temporary basis, in a temporary vacancy cannot claim any permanent for the post or for regularisation and such a request will have to be made only in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules framed there under. It is also stated that the post in question was filled up by a regularly appointed person and which is also approved by the authorities.

Notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner preferred a writ appeal being W.A.No.264 of 2009 in the Writ Appeal, the Division Bench by its judgment dated 23.10.2009, in Paragraph 5 observed that in view of the concurrent findings, the Division bench was sit in appeal over the same and not inclined to grant any relief as sought for in the case. But thereafter, curiously, the Division Bench in paragraph 6 recorded that since the petitioner has worked for some period in the school, he may be considered if any vacancy arises in the school either in the post of watchman or in any other post, if he is over aged it may be condoned. It is on the strength of this observation, the present writ petition came to be filed.

This Court do not consider that observation made by the Division bench helps the petitioner in any way as rightly held by this Court in the earlier writ petition that an appointment made in any school governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 will have to be in conformity with the Act and the Rules. The observation made by the Division Bench is only a sympathetic consideration in accordance with the Rules and considering the fact that the petitioner has already 53 years old and the post for which he was claimed unsuccessful before the Labour Court and this Court, the post has also filled up and the authorities approved the said appointment. Therefore, the present writ petition is misconceived and no right can be derived from the order of the Division Bench passed in W.A.No.264 of 2010. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.