Disposed

The State of Tamil Nadu v. C.Sam Jeffry Srinivasagam

Madras HC15 Apr 2016WA(MD)/604/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal was disposed of by consent. The State appellants and the school teacher respondent mutually agreed to a previous order directing the State to continue paying the teacher's salary without terminating his services pending the final outcome of the underlying writ petition regarding his appointment.

What did the court decide?

Directing the appellants to continue paying the salary of the first respondent without terminating his services pending the disposal of the connected writ petition.

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs C.Sam Jeffry Srinivasagam — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.04.2016 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶4

W.A.(MD)No.604 of 2016 and

¶5

CMP(MD)No.4138 of 2016

¶6

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶7

Rep. by its Secretary, School Education (C2) Department,

¶8

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶9

2.The Director of School Education,

¶10

College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶11

3.The District Educational Officer,

¶12

The Office of the District Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram,

¶13

Ramanathapuram District.

¶14

4.The Assistant District Educational Officer, O/o.District Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram District.

¶15

.. Appellants

¶16

Vs.

¶17

1.C.Sam Jeffry Srinivasagam

¶18

2.The Correspondent, Schwartz Higher Secondary School, Ramanathapuram District. .. Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters of Patent, against the common order dated 25.01.2016 made in W.M.P.(MD) No.1322 of 2016 in W.P.(MD)No.1561 of 2016.

¶20

Prayer in WMP(MD)No.1322/2016 in WP(MD)No.1561/2016:-

¶21

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 direction directing the 3^rd respondent to accord temporary Provisional approval for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointment of the Petitioner as a B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in the 5^th respondent School, pending disposal of WP.

¶22

¶23

Prayer in WP(MD)No.1561/2016:-

¶24

To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in Aa.The.Mu.No.4593/A2/2014 dated 15.10.2014 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to approve petitioner s appointment as a B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in the 5th respondent school, by considering the proposal dated 30.09.2014 in the light of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and cultural Trust – Vs – Union of India, 2014(8) SCC 1.

¶25

For Appellants : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader

¶26

For R1 : Mr.V.Balasubramanian

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

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

¶29

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 the first respondent as B.T.Assistant (Tamil) in the second respondent school and to pay salary to him from the date of his appointment, till the date of disposal of the writ petition.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

4.Mr.V.Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/petitioner has consented for a similar order to be passed.

¶33

5.In as much the above learned counsel for the first 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same lines:

¶34

“4.In a similar writ appeal filed by the State in the Principal Bench, a Division Bench of this Court has

¶35

¶36

passed the following order in W.A.No.1299 of 2015, dated 14.09.2015.

¶37

'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.

¶38

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 Government to grant temporary approval.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

Assistant Registrar(CSII)

¶45

/True Copy/

¶46

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶47

To https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.The Secretary,

¶48

School Education (C2) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

3.The District Educational Officer,

¶52

The Office of the District Educational Officer,

¶53

Ramanathapuram,

¶54

Ramanathapuram District.

¶55

4.The Assistant District Educational Officer, O/o.District Educational Officer,

¶56

Ramanathapuram District.

¶57

+One cc to M/s.Ajmal Associates, Advocate, SR.No.4633

¶58

rj2

¶59

RL/6C/4P/GSV/PM/18/5/2016

¶60

W.A.(MD)No.604 of 2016

¶61

15.04.2016

¶62

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

The State of Tamil Nadu v. C.Sam Jeffry Srinivasagam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamil Nadu v. C.Sam Jeffry Srinivasagam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Ramesh, S/O.Periyadurai Vs the District Collector

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs the Correspondent

The State of Tamilnadu Vs A.K. Shimila

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs a.Palaniappan

The Secretary to School Vs H.Shahul Hameed

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs Lillis Mary