Dismissed

The State of Tamil Nadu v. the Correspondent

Madras HC12 Apr 2016WA(MD)/529/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged an order directing the State to grant temporary approval for the appointment of a teacher in a minority school. The court disposed of the appeal on consent lines, directing the appellants to comply with the previous order protecting the teacher from termination and salary payment pending the final decision on TET qualification.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to comply with previous order: respondent teacher not to be terminated and to receive salary pending final outcome of related writ petition.

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs the Correspondent — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.04.2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR W.A.(MD)No.529 of 2016 and CMP(MD)No.3788 of 2016

¶3

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Madras – 600 009.

¶4

The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶5

The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶6

The District Educational Officer, Thucklay, Kanyakumari District. .. Appellants

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Correspondent, St. Josephs Higher Secondary School, Mulagumoodu – 629 167, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters of Patent, against the common order dated 18.01.2016 made in W.M.P.(MD)No.661 of 2016 in W.P.(MD)No.825 of 2016.

¶10

Prayer in WMP(MD). 661/ 2016 in W.P.(MD)No.825 of 2016:

¶11

This Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to grant an AD INTERIM ORDERS directing the 4th respondent District Educational Officer to provisional approve forthwith the appointment of T. Sasikala Kumari as BT Assistant in Social Science in the petitioner school w.e.f. the date of her appointment viz. 10.06.2013 with all attendant benefits within a reasonable time as may be prescribed by this Honble Court, pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶12

For Appellants : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by S.MANIKUMAR, J.)

¶17

In the present writ appeal, the challenge made is to the order passed by the writ Court, directing the appellants to grant temporary approval for appointment of one T.Sasikala Kumari as BT Assistant in Social Science in the petitioner school and to pay salary to her from the date of her appointment, till the date of disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

2.Learned counsel appearing for the parties in the appeal, have consented that, they are agreeable that the order passed in W.A.(MD) No.220/2016 dated 05.02.2016, be passed in the present appeal also, details of which are given below. Thus, by consent, the present appeal is taken up and disposed of.

¶19

3.On an earlier occasion, a similar Writ Appeal (MD) No.220 of 2016, filed by the State, has been considered and disposed of on 05.02.2016 by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (SMKJ) is a party.

¶20

4.Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Writ Petitioner has consented for a similar order to be passed.

¶21

5.In as much the above learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has consented for a similar order as made in W.A.(MD) No.220 of 2016, dated 05.02.2016, this Court deem it fit to extract the same and dispose of the Writ Appeal on the same lines:

¶22

“4.In a similar writ appeal filed by the State in the Principal Bench, a Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order in W.A.No.1299 of 2015, dated 14.09.2015.

¶23

'4.Be that as it may, the issue as to whether the provisions of the Act, will be applicable to a minority institution, is pending consideration in Aswinithanappan Vs. Director of Education and another – (2014) 8 SCC 272 .

¶24

5.In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case as to whether a teacher appointed in a minority school is required to have TET qualification, as the same is the subject matter of the Writ petition, we are of the considered view that interest justice would subserve, if the appointment of the first respondent is protected, without giving any direction to the State https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government to grant temporary approval.

¶25

¶26

6.Mr.D.Krishnakumar, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) appearing for the appellants fairly submits that the first respondent shall not be terminated during the pendency of the said writ petition being W.P.No.14072 of 2015.

¶27

7.Accordingly, we direct that the first respondent shall be given her salary in the course of her employment and no steps to remove her from service shall be taken till the disposal of the writ petition. However, it is made clear that this order is subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petition. It is further made clear that the first respondent shall not claim any equity on account of this order, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, therein.

¶28

8.This intra-Court appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. ”

¶29

6.By consent, Writ Appeal is disposed of on the same lines as ordered in W.A.(MD) No.220 of 2016 dated 05.02.2016. Having consented, appellants are directed to comply with the orders. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

¶35

The Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Madras – 600 009.

¶36

The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶37

The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶38

The District Educational Officer, Thucklay, Kanyakumari District.

¶39

- 1 CC TO MR.T.CIBI CHAKRABORTHY, ADVOCATE IN SR NO. 20618 RJ2

¶40

TE/SKS-RR/ : 29/04/2016 : 3P/6C W.A.(MD)No.529 of 2016

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and CMP(MD)No.3788 of 2016 12.04.2016

The State of Tamil Nadu v. the Correspondent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamil Nadu v. the Correspondent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Periyasamy Vs S.Devi, Junior Assistant

Dindigul Mavatta Aituc Pothu Vs the District Collector

The State of Tamilnadu Vs A.K. Shimila