To enforce work discipline in schools, conduct of teachers should be monitored and a periodical report should be sent to higher authorities for taking effective measures and action, observed the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
Justice S. M. Subramaniam observed that teaching was a noble profession and teachers were expected to maintain a good conduct. It was painful that there were several instances of teachers being involved in heinous offences, including sexual harassment of children in schools.
Many such cases had been reported in recent times. Education Department had to take effective measures to regulate the conduct of teachers across the State. The government was taking corrective measures, but they were insufficient to enforce discipline, the judge said.
The court directed School Education Department to initiate further steps to ensure that the conduct of the teachers and the teaching quality at schools were monitored periodically and all appropriate actions initiated.
Further, the court said competent authorities should review whether the salary paid to the teachers was commensurate with their performance and working hours for the purpose of enforcing work discipline. Allotment of works was to be regulated.
No doubt the teachers were entitled to a decent salary. However, it was to be considered whether they were performing their duties in accordance with the rules in force and to the expectation of the parents and the students, the judge said.
The court was hearing a petition filed in 2019 by a government school teacher, A. Muthu of Pudukkottai district. The petitioner joined service in 2004 and his service was regularised from 2006. In 2019, the Education Department rejected his request for regularisation from 2004.
Challenging the department’s decision, he filed the petition. The court took note of the fact that he was appointed not on a regular basis but on a consolidated pay on certain terms and conditions.
The grant of regularisation in 2006 in favour of the petitioner was a concession as the initial appointment was not made in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. Retrospective regularisation could not be granted by the court, the judge said and dismissed the petition.
