Allowed

The Secretary v. K.Solomon Jeyaraj

Madras HC22 Apr 2016WA(MD)/680/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench disposed of a writ appeal by consent against an order granting temporary approval of a teacher's appointment. The court directed the appellants to follow a prior similar order protecting the respondent's salary and service status while the substantive issue remains pending.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was disposed of on the same lines as W.A.(MD) No.220 of 2016; appellants directed to comply.

The Secretary Vs K.Solomon Jeyaraj — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.04.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶7

W.A.(MD)No.680 of 2016

¶8

and

¶9

W.M.P.(MD).No.4425 of 2016

¶10

1.The Secretary,

¶11

Department of School Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

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

¶13

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli.

¶14

4.The District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli.

.. Appellants

Vs.

1.K.Solomon Jeyaraj

2.The Correspondent, St. John's Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai. .. Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters of Patent, against the order dated 17.12.2015 made in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 in W.P. (MD)No.15952 of 2015.

¶20

Prayer in MP(MD). 1/ 2015 in WP(MD).15952/2015 :

¶21

To issue an order of Ad-Interim Direction, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to grant interim approval of the petitioner s appointment with effect from 18.10.2012 as B.T. Assistant (History) in the 5th respondent Minority Aided School without insisting him passing of TET and pay salary pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶22

Prayer in WP(MD). 15952/ 2015 :

¶23

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records in connection with the proceedings of the 4th respondent, District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, bearing Ref. No.NA.KA. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2927/A4/2014 dated 09.07.2014 and quash the same and further direct the respondents 1 to 4 to grant approval of the petitioner s appointment as

¶24

¶25

B.T. Assistant (History) in the 5th respondent minority Aided School in view of the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in WP(C) No.1081 of 2013.

¶26

For Appellants : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader For R1 : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar

¶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 (History) 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.T.Pon Ramkumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/petitioner has consented for a similar order to be passed.

¶33

5.Inasmuch as the 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:

¶34

“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.

¶35

'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.'

¶36

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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ protected, without giving any direction to the State Government to grant temporary approval.

¶37

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

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.

¶42

Sd/

¶43

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶44

/True Copy/

¶45

Sub Assistant Registrar.

¶46

¶47

1.The Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶48

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶49

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

¶50

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli.

¶51

4.The District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli. +1CC to M/S.T.Pon Ramkumar, Advocate, SR.No. 22634

¶52

W.A.(MD)No.680 of 2016 and

¶53

W.M.P.(MD).No.4425 of 2016 22.04.2016

¶54

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ gcg AM/AAL.MPA/SAR-I/07.06.2016/3P/6C

The Secretary v. K.Solomon Jeyaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary v. K.Solomon Jeyaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.A. Clement Raja Vs the District Revenue Officer

M.Subramanian, Vs the District Collector and

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Grace Revathi

M/S. State Bank of India Vs the District Collector

S.Parthasarathy, Vs the Registrar General

The Secretary to Government Vs N.Dhivya