Allowed

Tmt.R.Sathya, D.T.Ed., B.Lit., v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC24 Jul 2015WP/21834/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted temporary approval for the petitioner's appointment as Primary School Headmistress for five years despite lack of TET qualification, as the exam is not regularly conducted. She must vacate the office if she fails to qualify thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Temporary approval as Primary School Headmistress for five years with consequential benefits, subject to qualifying in TET; quash of order rejecting appointment.

Tmt.R.Sathya, D.T.Ed., B.Lit., Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.07.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P.No.21834 of 2015

¶6

¶7

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

¶8

Tmt.R.Sathya, D.T.Ed, B.Lit., M.A., B.Ed Secondary Grade Headmaster Moga Murai Aided Primary School Thottaipatti, Vennanthur Namakkal District

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary Education Department Secretariat, Chennai – 9

¶12

The Director of Elementary Education College Road, Chennai – 6

¶13

The District Elementary Education Officer Namakkal

¶14

The Assistant Elementary Education Officer Vennanthur Namakkal District

¶15

Moga Murai Aided Primary School Rep by its Correspondent Thottiapatti, Vennanthur Namakkal District ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records made in O.Mu.No.1509/A1/2012 dated

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

28.12.2012 on the file of the fourth respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner, as Secondary Grade Headmaster w.e.f 12.10.2012 with all consequential benefits.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mr.K.Rajendraprasad Government Advocate

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶22

The petitioner was appointed in the fifth respondent School as Headmistress on 01.10.2012, which is an aided elementary school. Apart from the petitioner, there is only one other teacher. Since the other teacher gave a letter stating that he is not interested in the post of Headmaster, the petitioner was appointed as Headmistress.

¶23

When the school sought for approval of the appointment, the same was rejected on two grounds. Firstly on the ground that the petitioner does not pass TET exam and the second ground was that the post of Headmistress shall be filled up only by way of promotion and if the school resort to direct recruitment, permission should be obtained for direct recruitment.

¶24

In this case, the other teacher tendered unwillingness for promotion as Headmaster.

¶25

As far as non-possession of TET qualification is concerned, this Court passed various orders granting temporary approval for a period of five years, taking note of the fact that the TET Examination is not conducted and even if conducted, it has not been conducted on regular basis for the year 2014 and till date no TET examination is conducted for the year 2015.

¶26

In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to grant temporary approval as Primary School Headmistress for a period of five years from the date of appointment of the petitioner and to grant consequential benefits. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to qualify in TET, she shall vacate the office.

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶29

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶30

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gpa
To
1. The Secretary
Education Department
Secretariat, Chennai – 9
2. The Director of Elementary Education
College Road, Chennai – 6
3. The District Elementary Education Officer
Namakkal
4. The Assistant Elementary Education Officer
Vennanthur
Namakkal District
W.P.No.21834 of 2015 &
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
EV(CO)
CA(14/08/2015)

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Tmt.R.Sathya, D.T.Ed., B.Lit., v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.R.Sathya, D.T.Ed., B.Lit., v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Maragatham Vs The Commissioner

A.Murugan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

M.Bheemavathi, Vs The Director of School

C.Prabu Vs The Director

S.Vijayalakshmi, Dy Block Vs The District Collector

K.Nagarajan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu