Allowed

The Director of School v. S.Lalitha

Madras HC18 Apr 2016WA(MD)/660/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ appeal filed by school officials against an interim direction allowing a teacher's appointment in a minority school. Since counsel consented to an order similar to a prior judgment citing Aswinithanappan, the court directed the appellants to continue the respondent's employment, pay salary, and refrain from termination without prejudice to the final outcome.

What did the court decide?

The appellants are directed to continue the payment of salary to the first respondent and not take steps to remove her from service till the disposal of the writ petition, consistent with the order in

The Director of School Vs S.Lalitha — Education and Admissions | 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

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶7

W.A.(MD)No.660 of 2016

¶8

and

¶9

CMP(MD)No.4294 of 2016

¶10

The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-6. 2. The Joint Director of School Educational (Secondary), DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. 3. The District Educational Officer, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. .. Appellants

¶11

Vs.

¶12

S.Lalitha

¶13

The Correspondent, Shaukathul Islam (B.M.S.) Higher Secondary School, Valoothoor – 614 201, Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District. .. Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters of Patent, against the order dated 18.11.2015 made in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 in W.P. (MD)No.20406 of 2015.

¶15

Prayer in MP(MD). 1/ 2015 in WP(MD).20406/2015 :

¶16

To grant an order of Interim Direction directing official Respondents to temporarily approve the appointment of the Petitioner in the 4th Respondent School in the post of B.T. Assistant (Tamil) and to release the salary grant from the date of initial appointment.

¶17

Prayer in WP(MD). 20406/ 2015 :

¶18

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to approve the appointment of the Petitioner in the post of B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in the 4th Respondent School from the date of appointment on 10/06/2013 based on the proposal forwarded by the 4th Respondent School dated 03/12/2013, with consequential and other attendant benefits, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ including payment of arrears of salary from the date of appointment with interest.

¶19

¶20

For Appellants : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader

¶21

For R1 : Mr.G.Sankaran

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

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

¶24

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 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

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:

¶29

“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.

¶30

'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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

7.Accordingly, we direct that the first respondent shall be given her salary in the course of her employment and no steps

¶35

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

Assistant Registrar (RTI)

¶41

/True Copy/

¶42

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶43

¶44

The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-6.

¶45

The Joint Director of School Educational (Secondary), DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶46

The District Educational Officer, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶47

RJ2

¶48

TE/SKS-RR/ : 05/05/2016 : 3P/4C

¶49

W.A.(MD)No.660 of 2016 and CMP(MD)No.4294 of 2016 18.04.2016

¶50

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

The Director of School v. S.Lalitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director of School v. S.Lalitha

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

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 Stateof Tamilnadu Vs P.Rajendran Prasath

The State of Tamilnadu, Vs C.Poomani