V. Thiyagarajan vs Secretary and Correspondent thiru W.T. Masilamani Hr. Sec. School and Others

K. Chandru, J.—Heard both sides.

The Petitioner is working as an Office Assistant in the 1st Respondent School. The grievance of the Petitioner was that his increments have not

been granted and he has also not been promoted to the post of Record Clerk though a vacancy was exist.

When the matter came up on 25.1.2011, the learned Government Advocate was directed to take notice. Subsequently, on behalf of the School,

Mrs. G. Thilagavathi appears and she also filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3 dated 15.2.2011. An additional typed set is

also filed by them.

With reference to the 1st grievance of the Petitioner that the increments have not been released, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the

School management that initially the Petitioner suffered a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and

when approval was sought for, the Department returned the papers directing the School to reconsider the said punishment and thereafter the

School Committee reduced the punishment of increment cut for a period of one year with cumulative effect by proceedings dated 15.2.2011 and

once again after the said order was passed, fresh proposal to claim increment to the Petitioner has been sent to the Department and the Service

Register has been returned by the Department to the School management. Therefore, nothing is available in the hands of the school management.

Under the circumstances, 6th Respondent is directed to pass orders on the proposal sent by the school management with reference to the

release of increment to which the Petitioner is entitled.

With reference to the promotion to the post of Record Clerk, the learned Counsel for the school management submits that as of now there is no

vacancy. Whereas the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is a vacancy exist. In any event, it is unnecessary for this Court to deal

with the said issue, as the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act,1973 has ample powers to take care of in case the Petitioner is

overlooked or denied promotion. Rule 15(4-A) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 provides for an appeal to the

appellate authority and in respect of the Higher Secondary School, it is the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary). The Act itself

has provided a remedy in case there is denial of any promotion for Teachers or non-teaching staff. There is no need to deal with this issue. Hence,

the writ petition stands dismissed with the above observation. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.