In W.P.(MD)No.1434 of 2023-MAD HC- School not entitled to claim grant-in-aid as per Rule 6 of Grant-in-Aid Code when order of approval is not granted, holds Madras HC while reaffirming that such aid is not fundamental right
Justice S.Srimathy [09-05-2023]

Read Order: R.Rajesh And Ors v. The Commissioner Directorate of School Education DPI Campus And Ors 

Tulip Kanth

Madurai, May 10, 2023: While considering the fact that the State is having more than 6000 surplus Teachers and the State Government is spending crores of rupees for paying salary to those surplus Teachers, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed a petition challenging DEO’s order whereby proposals for appointment of petitioners was returned. 

The petitioners had approached the Single-Judge Bench of Justice S.Srimathy with a plea to quash the impugned order of the District Educational Officer and consequently to direct the Official respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioners in the posts of B.T. Assistant and Physical Education Teacher in the respondent-School, from the date of appointment with all consequential and other attendant benefits including arrears of salary with interest within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

The facts of the case were such that the fourth respondent-a Private Aided Non-Minority School having standards from 6 to 10, appointed the petitioners after selection process by the selection committee and the proposals were forwarded for approval. The same was returned by the DEO, vide the impugned order . Challenging the said order, the present writ petition was filed.

In the School, vacancy arose for the posts of B.T.Assistant (Science),  B.T.Assistant (Tamil) due to the retirement of the earlier teachers. Consequent to the vacancy arose in the year 2007, 2011 and 2013, the respondent School submitted several representations seeking permission to fill up the posts and the last representation was submitted on 01.11.2018. Consequently, the 4th respondent School has also forwarded the proposal to the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings, dated 13.06.2019, whereas, no orders were passed by the respondents.

The petitioners had put forth a case stating that the petitioners as well as the fourth respondent School approached the official respondents by stating that teaching posts in chool were not filled up and were kept pending for many years and the appointments were made only in the sanctioned posts. Moreover, the 2019 Government Order was declared as inoperative and the appointments were liable to be approved based on the existing Government orders. 

The Bench referred to the staff fixation order issued for the academic year 2018-2019, and opined that the school was having only six sections,but it was having 9 Teachers (including Middle School Headmaster). As far as the other B.T.Assistants were concerned, the School was having one B.T.Assistant (Science), therefore, one more B.T.Assistant (Science) was not essential based on the work load. 

In the staff fixation, one Secondary Grade Teacher was declared as surplus. In spite of the same, the School had unilaterally upgraded the said post as B.T.Assistant and had appointed one B.T.Assistant in the upgraded post. Therefore, the Bench opined that the School was not entitled to fill up the said post. The School ought to have informed the authorities to pass deployment orders or deputation orders so that the surplus teachers would be posted in the said vacancy, the Bench added.

Referring to the G.O.Ms.No.525 School Education dated December 29, 1997 which states that any School is entitled to Physical Education Teacher, if the student strength is more than 250, the Bench held that the appointment of the Physical Education Teacher was against the said G.O.Ms as the school was having only 244 students strength.

The Bench also placed reliance on various precedents and said, “ Moreover there are several judgments where it has been held that the grant-in-aid is not a fundamental right and it is not automatic.”

The High Court opined that the Grant-in-Aid Code has categorically stated that schools may be paid grant-in-aid subject to the orders and instructions issued by the government from time to time.  When the order of approval was not granted, then as per Rule 6 the school was not entitled to claim grant-in-aid, the Bench noted while rejecting the plea that the school was enititled to grant-in-aid.

The Bench concluded the matter by observing that the School ought not to have filled up the said post and ought to have informed the authorities to pass deployment orders or deputation orders, so that the surplus Teachers would be posted in the said vacancies.

“The School is receiving grant-in-aid and is also having some public duty. The State is having more than 6000 surplus Teachers and the State Government is spending crores of rupees for paying salary to the surplus Teachers”, the Bench said while quashing impugned order.