Dismissed

The State of Tamilnadu v. A.K. Shimila

Madras HC12 Apr 2016WA(MD)/532/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ appeal by consent. The appellants challenged an order protecting a teacher's appointment in a minority school pending a constitutional challenge regarding TET qualifications. The court ordered the appeals dismissed on the same lines as a similar consent appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed on terms of consent; appellants directed to comply with prior order.

The State of Tamilnadu Vs A.K. Shimila — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.04.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶7

W.A.(MD)No.532 of 2016 and CMP(MD)No.3805 of 2016

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoi, Kanyakumari District 629 001.

¶11

4.The District Educational Officer,

¶12

Thucklay – 629 175, Kanyakumari District. ..Appellants

¶13

Vs.

¶14

1.A.K.Shimila, B.T.Assisant in Maths, Yettacode Higher Secondary School, Yettacode, Thiruvattar 629 171, Kanyakumari District.

¶15

2.The Correspondent, Yettacode Hr. Secondary School, Yettacode, Thiruvattar – 629 171, Kanyakumari District. ..Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters of Patent, against the common order dated 28.01.2016 made in W.P.(MD)No.13110 of 2014.

¶17

Prayer in WP(MD). 13110/ 2014 :

¶18

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent District Educational officer to approve forthwith the appointment of the petitioner as BT Assistant in Maths in the 5th respondent school namely, Yettacode Hr. Secondary School, Yettacode w.e.f. the dated of the petitioner appointment of 4.6.2012 with all attendant benefits including the arrears of salary and allowances on par https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with similarly placed persons.

¶19

¶20

For Appellants : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader For R1 : Mr.S.Xavier Rajini

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

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

¶23

In the present writ appeal, the challenge made is to the order passed by the writ Court, directing the appellants to grant temporary approval, and to pay salary to the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner, from the date of her appointment, till the date of disposal of the writ petition.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

4.Mr.S.Xavier Rajini, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent/Writ Petitioner has consented for a similar order to be passed.

¶27

5.In as much the above learned counsel for the 1^st 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:

¶28

“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.

¶29

'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.

¶30

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 sub-serve, if the appointment of the first respondent is protected, without giving any direction to the State Government to grant temporary approval.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

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 Petitions is closed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar(P&A)

¶38

/True copy/

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoi, Kanyakumari District 629 001.

¶44

4.The District Educational Officer, Thucklay – 629 175, Kanyakumari District.

¶45

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader in sR.20685 W.A.(MD)No.532 of 2016 12.04.2016 RJ2

¶46

PBK/SK-SKN 02.05.2016 ::3P-6C:

¶47

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

The State of Tamilnadu v. A.K. Shimila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamilnadu v. A.K. Shimila

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 Tamil Nadu Vs the Correspondent