(Prayer in Cont.P(MD)No.285 of 2024: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the contemnors/3rd and 4th respondents herein for the deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this court dated 24.04.2023 in W.P.(MD) No.19335 of 2016.

In Rev.Appl.W(MD) No.147 of 2024: Review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code to review the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.19335 of 2016 dated 24.04.2023.)

1. The Contempt Petition is filed alleging deliberate and willful disobedience of the order dated 24.04.2023 passed in W.P.(MD) No.19335 of 2016. The Review application is filed against the same order dated 24.04.2023 passed in W.P.(MD) No. 19335 of 2016.

2.1. The brief facts of the case are that the D.Valarmathi Florence petitioner in Cont.P(MD)No.285 of 2024 was appointed as B.T. Assistant (Maths) on 05.03.1996 in the Concordia Higher Secondary School, Vadakangulam, Tirunelveli. The school informed the petitioner that because of the surplus teachers, the education department would pass orders to deploy the teachers. Objecting the same she had submitted a representation dated 22.02.2011. In the meanwhile, three Teachers namely Navaretna Vasantha, J.D.Mercy Beula and J.Jesu Durai were called to attend counseling at the Office of the 3rd respondent on 22.02.2011. Later the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District has sent individual orders of deployment. During the year 2011, there were 254 students in the Concordia Higher Secondary School, Vadakangulam, Tirunelveli. Further there were 17 teachers including the headmaster, excluding special teachers like drawing, sewing, physical education and craft teachers which is comprising 1 Head Master, 7 PG Teachers, 1 Vocational Teacher, 2 B.T. Assistants, 1 B.T. Language Teacher (Tamil) and 5 Secondary Grade Teachers.

                     2.2. The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District had issued an order of deployment dated 22.02.2011 and deployed the petitioner to Baliah Marthandam Higher Secondary School, Tirunelveli District. Out of the above said 17 teachers, 2 PG teachers were appointed only on 24.02.2011 and not even approved by the competent authority at that point of time. But for the purpose of retaining the PG teachers, the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District, has issued order of deployment to D.Valarmathy Florence who was serving as B.T. Assistant. Challenging the deployment order, D.Valarmathy Florence filed W.P.(MD) No.2445 of 2011 and an interim order was passed as to the effect of maintaining status quo as on then [02.03.2011]. Despite the order of this Court, D.Valarmathy Florence was not permitted to continue in the Concordia Higher Secondary School, Vadakangulam, Tirunelveli.

                     2.3. In the meanwhile, in the Concordia Higher Secondary School, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli, one B.T. Assistant (Maths) became vacant, since it was coming under the same Corporate Management of India Evangelical Lutheran Church the petitioner requested to accommodate in the said post, but the same was not considered. But the Concordia Higher Secondary School, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District had granted promotion to the J. Elizabeth Paulin from Secondary Grade Teacher to B.T. Assistant (Maths) with retrospective effect from 19.09.2007. Subsequently, the Director of School Education, Chennai issued an order, dated 06.09.2016, ratifying the promotion. The writ petitioner D.Valarmathi Florence aggrieved by the order of promotion given to the Secondary Grade Teacher had filed the W.P.(MD)No.19335 of 2016 seeking writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 06.09.2016 of the Director of School Education, Chennai in so far as approving the promotion issued to J.Elizebeth Paulin and consequently to direct for the transfer of the petitioner to the post of B.T. Assistant in Mathematics in the Concordia Higher Secondary School, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli with consequential benefits. The Court disposed the said writ petition on 24.04.2023 in the following terms:

                     “14. At this Juncture the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted even though the petitioner is 57 years, she has service for more than 3 years and she may be accommodated in the respondents' school. Therefore, the DEO is directed to accommodate the petitioner in Baliah School or any other needy school within a period of two weeks. However, the petitioner shall be appointed as fresh entrant and she shall be allowed to continue until her superannuation. Further the petitioner is not entitled to any backwages or continuity of service. The service of the petitioner from 05.03.1996 (the date on which the petitioner was appointed) to 28.02.2011 (the date on which the petitioner was relieved) shall be calculated and the terminal benefits and pensionary benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioner.

                     15. With the above said observation and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”

                     2.4. On receipt of the copy of the abovementioned order, the petitioner had communicated the same to the respondents in Cont.P(MD)No.285 of 2024 on 07.07.2023. On inaction, she has sent another representation on 10.08.2023. The period of 2 weeks specified in the order expired on 08.05.2023. Hence the writ petitioner issued a Legal Notice to the respondents and filed Cont.P(MD)No.285 of 2024 on 09.01.2024. Despite many attempts, the respondents had never complied with the order, hence the present contempt petition was filed.

3. The respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.(MD) No.19335 of 2016 has preferred review application in Rev.Appl.W(MD) No.147 of 2024 against W.P.(MD) No.19335 of 2016 raising various grounds.

4. Heard Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar, the Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner / petitioner in contempt / 1st respondent in review application, Mr.V.Om Prakash, the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents in writ petition / contemnors in contempt petitioner / review petitioners and Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar, the Learned Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent / Concordia Higher Secondary School and perused the records.

5. Before going into the merits of the case, this Court is bound to record that this case is a classic case which exhibits how the G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, could not be implemented. Any deployment orders passed by invoking G.O.Ms.No.525 to accommodate surplus teachers was not obeyed by the teachers or the school management. The school management and the individual teachers would never obey the orders of deployment and they would litigate the issue before Courts, thereby the surplus teachers increased in high numbers and became uncontrollable. Unless the approval to such teachers were stopped by giving retrospective effect the said issue cannot be controlled at all.

6. The primary contention of the review applicant is that the writ petitioner was issued deployment order dated 22.02.2011. But the writ petitioner has challenged the order of promotion granted to 4th respondent herein / J.Elizebeth Paulin. The school has converted the vacant post of B.T. Assistant (Maths) into B.T. Assistant (Science) on 19.09.2007 without obtaining prior permission for converting the post. The said conversion was approved on 06.09.2016 with retrospective effect from 19.09.2007. By taking advantage of the said approval with retrospective effect as cause of action the writ petitioner had filed the writ petition, but the writ petitioner has no right to claim the said post. After hearing the above contention, this Court is of the considered opinion that when the petitioner was deployed in the year 2011, she cannot lay right over the post which was approved subsequently in the year 2016 by conversion of the post from B.T. Assistant (Maths) to B.T. Assistant (Science). Merely because retrospective effect is granted to for the said post, the petitioner will not get any right over the post.

7. Further it is seen writ petitioner has not obeyed the deployment order and failed to join the Baliah Marthadam school. It is pertinent to note that the said Baliah school is only 13 kilometers away from the Concordia school. Even though the writ petitioner had taken the plea that Baliah school had failed to accommodate the writ petitioner, this Court has recorded the same in the writ order and has held that the petitioner had right to approach the authorities to implement the order, but the petitioner had failed to take any steps to implement the order. All these years i.e. from 2011 until the filing of the writ petition in the year 2016, the petitioner had kept silent, suddenly the petitioner cannot seek any remedy.

8. Further it is seen that the petitioner had not availed the opportunity of counselling conducted for deploying the teachers. Had the same was availed the petitioner would be accommodated in the place of the writ petitioner’s choice.

9. This Court has ordered to appoint the petitioner as new entrant in the said school. The review applicant submitted that they have only supervisory power and can only verify whether the private school management is following the norms fixed by the provisions of the Act. If the petitioner is appointed as new entrant in the private aided minority school by the review applicants, then the same would be interfering in the management of the school which would be against the Statute. That too after terminating the service of the writ petitioner there is no question of appointing her as new entrant. This Court is accepting the said contention, any appointment in private aided minority school would be exclusive right of the said school. Further after terminating the service, there is no question of appointing a new entrant. Consequently, the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

10. The writ order was passed on equity, but the petitioner is not entitled to equity. The review applicant had rightly pointed out that the petitioner had come up to challenge the promotion order of the 4th respondent herein / Elizebeth Paulin in order to conceal the writ petitioner’s delay and lacuna on her part.

11. For the reasons stated supra, the review petition is allowed and the order dated 24.04.2023 passed in the writ petition is modified. The writ petitioner is not entitled to appointment as new entrant. The other portion of the order is retained.

12. Since the review application is allowed, there is no contempt as alleged. Consequently, the contempt petition is closed.