In a consensual disposal, the High Court directed the appellants to grant salary to the teacher and refrain from termination until the writ petition is decided, referencing similar precedents regarding minority school appointments.
Direction to pay salary and not remove petitioner from service pending disposal of writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.04.2016
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.A.(MD)No.651 of 2016
and CMP(MD)No.4269 of 2016
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 6.
2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai – 6.
3.The District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi.
.. Appellants
Vs.
1.C.Poomani
2.The Correspondent, TDTAPS Periyanayagam Higher Secondary School, Pudukkottai – 628 103. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters of Patent, against the order dated 27.01.2016 made in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2014 in W.P.(MD)No.10750 of 2014.
Prayer in MP(MD). 2/ 2014 in WP(MD).10750/2014 :
To pass an order of Ad interim direction, directing the Respondents to grant temporary approval for the petitioner's appointment as B.T Assistant (History) in the 4th respondent school from 13.12.2011 pending disposal of the above WP.
Prayer in WP(MD). 10750/ 2014 :
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.No. 2135/Aa4/14 dated 05.06.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to approve the petitioner s appointment as B.T Assistant (History) in the 4th respondent school from 13.12.2011 within the time frame that may be stipulated by this Honourable Court.
2
For Appellants : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader
For R1 : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by S.MANIKUMAR, J.)
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.
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.
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.
4.Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/petitioner has consented for a similar order to be passed.
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:
“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.
'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.
5.In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case as to whether a teacher appointed in a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ minority school is required to have TET qualification, as the same is the subject matter of the Writ petition, we are
3
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.
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.
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.
8.This intra-Court appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. ”
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
To 1.The Secretary, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 6.
2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai – 6.
3.The District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi.
W.A.(MD)No.651 of 2016 18.04.2016
rj2 SH/KBM/SAR-II:06.06.2016:3P/4C
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted salary and protected from termination during the pendency of the writ petition despite pending consideration of TET qualification standards for minority school
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Aswinithanappan Vs. Director of Education and anotherReferred¶34
Aswinithanappan Vs. Director of Education and another – (2014) 8 SCC 272. · Who else cites this
State of Tamilnadu
C.Poomani
S.Manikumar
S.S.Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
