Disposed

The State of Tamil Nadu v. the Correspondent

Madras HC22 Apr 2016WA(MD)/681/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On consent, the High Court disposed of a writ appeal by directing the appellants (State authorities) to honor an interim order protecting a teacher's appointment and preventing termination pending the resolution of a pending writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed appellants to comply with the interim order protecting the teacher's appointment and salary and not to take steps to remove him from service.

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs the Correspondent — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.04.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.681 of 2016

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P.(MD).No.4426 of 2016

¶9

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education,

¶10

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

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

¶12

3.The Chief Educational Officer,

¶13

Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

4.The District Educational Officer, Thucklay – 629 175, Kanyakumari District. .. Appellants

¶15

Vs.

¶16

The Correspondent,

¶17

St. Josephs M.S.C. Hr. Sec. School, Chellamkonam, Kappiyarai, Kanyakumari District.

¶18

.. Respondent

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters of Patent, against the order dated 25.01.2016 made in W.M.P.(MD)No.1343 of 2016 in W.P.(MD)No.1578 of 2016.

¶20

Prayer in WMP(MD). 1343/ 2016 :

¶21

To grant an order of Ad INTERIM ORDERS directing the 4th respondent District Educational Officer to provisionally approve forthwith the appointment of D. Rajendran as BT Assistant in History in the petitioners school w.e.f the date of his appointment on 01.06.2012 and disburse the grant-in-aid towards his salary and allowances. within a reasonable time as may be specified by this Honble Court, pending disposal of the WP.

¶22

Prayer in WP(MD). 1578/ 2016 :

¶23

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the

¶24

¶25

impugned proceedings issued by the 4th respondent District Educational Officer in O.Mu.No.2828/A2/2015 dated 08.01.2016, Quash the same and further direct the 4th respondent District Educational Officer to approve forthwith the appointment of D. Rajendran as BT Assistant in History in the petitioners school w.e.f the date of his appointment on 01.06.2012 with all attendant benefits.

¶26

For Appellants : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan

¶27

Special Government Pleader

¶28

For Respondent : Mr.Cibi Chakraborthy

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

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

¶31

In the present writ appeal, the challenge made is to the interim order passed by the writ Court, directing the appellants to grant temporary approval for appointment of Mr.D.Rajendran as B.T.Assistant (History) in the respondent school and to pay salary to him from the date of his appointment, till the date of disposal of the writ petition.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

5.Inasmuch as the learned counsel for the 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:

¶36

“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.

¶37

'4.Be that as it may, the issue as to whether the provisions of the Act, will be applicable to a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ minority institution, is pending consideration in Aswinithanappan Vs. Director of Education and another

¶38

¶39

– (2014) 8 SCC 272.'

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶49

¶50

1.The Secretary,

¶51

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

¶52

2.The Director of School Education,

¶53

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶54

¶55

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶56

4.The District Educational Officer, Thucklay – 629 175, Kanyakumari District.

¶57

+1 CC to Mr.CIBI CHAKRABORTHY, Advocate, SR No.23255

¶58

W.A.(MD)No.681 of 2016

¶59

22.04.2016

¶60

gcg SH/KBM/SAR-II:06.06.2016:4P/6C

¶61

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

The State of Tamil Nadu v. the Correspondent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamil Nadu v. the Correspondent

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

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