Allowed

The State of Tamil Nadu v. J.Jeba Margary Paula

Madras HC18 Apr 2016WA(MD)/621/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On consent of parties, the appellate bench directed the State to grant salary and refrain from terminating the respondent teacher pending disposal of the writ petition, following the reasoning in a previous similar appeal regarding minority institutions and pending merit considerations.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to receive salary and not be terminated; State directed to comply; no equity to claim.

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs J.Jeba Margary Paula — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.04.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.621 of 2016 and

¶7

CMP(MD)No.4193 of 2016

¶8

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education (C2) Department,

¶9

Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶10

2.The Director of School Education,

¶11

College Road, Chennai.

¶12

3.The District Educational Officer,

¶13

O/o.District Educational Officer,

¶14

Virudhunagar District.

¶15

4.The Assistant District Educational Officer,

¶16

O/o.District Educational Officer,

¶17

Virudhunagar District.

¶18

.. Appellants

¶19

Vs.

¶20

1.Mr.J.Jeba Margary Paula

¶21

2.The Correspondent,

¶22

C.M.S. Higher Secondary School,

¶23

Srivilliputhur,

¶24

Virudhunagar District.

¶25

.. Respondents

¶26

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.657 of 2016 in W.P.(MD)No.823 of 2016.

¶27

Prayer in WMP(MD). 657/ 2016 :

¶28

To grant an Ad-Interim Direction directing the 3rd respondent to accord temporary provisional approval for appointment of the petitioner as a B.T.Assistant (History) in the 5th respondent school, pending disposal of the above WP.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

Prayer in WP(MD). 823/ 2016 :

¶32

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court 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 Athi.Mu.No.2157/A5/2014 dt.28.07.2014 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to approve petitioners appointment as a B.T.Assistant(History) in the 5th respondent school, by considering the proposal dt.16.07.2014 in light of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Pramati Education and cultural.

¶33

For Appellants : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan

¶34

Special Government Pleader For R1 : Mr.P.Vijayakumar

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

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

¶37

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 (History) in the second respondent school and to pay salary to her from the date of her appointment, till the date of disposal of the writ petition.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

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 same lines:

¶42

“4.In a similar writ appeal filed by the State in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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.

¶43

¶44

'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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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

¶49

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.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

Assistant Registrar (P&A)

¶52

/True Copy/

¶53

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶54

rj2

¶55

¶56

1.The Secretary, School Education (C2) Department, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶57

¶58

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai.

¶59

3.The District Educational Officer, O/o.District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District.

¶60

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

¶61

GJM/NGM/MP/SAR-III-2.6.16-4p-5C

¶62

W.A.(MD)No.621 of 2016

¶63

18.04.2016

¶64

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

The State of Tamil Nadu v. J.Jeba Margary Paula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamil Nadu v. J.Jeba Margary Paula

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

L. Alagarsamy Vs the Revenue Divisional

Singamuthu, Vs the District Collector and

Marimuthu Vs the District Collector and the

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs M.Vinoth

The Director of School Vs S.Lalitha

The Stateof Tamilnadu Vs P.Rajendran Prasath