Disposed

The State of Tamil Nadu v. the Correspondent

Madras HC28 Apr 2016WA(MD)/685/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal was disposed of on consent. The Court directed the State to continue the petitioner teacher's employment, pay her salary, and not remove her from service pending the final outcome of the underlying writ petition challenging the appointment requirements in minority schools.

What did the court decide?

Direction to appellants to grant temporary approval, pay salary, and not remove the petitioner from service pending disposal of the writ petition; appellants to comply with this order.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 28.04.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.685 of 2016 and

¶7

CMP(MD)No.4431 of 2016

¶8

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

¶9

Fort. St. George, Chennai – 9.

¶10

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6.

¶11

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Ramnad, Ramnad District.

¶12

4.The District Educational Officer, Ramnad, Ramnad District.

¶13

.. Appellants/Respondents/ Respondents

¶14

Vs.

¶15

The Correspondent, Holy Cross Girls Higher Secondary School, Thangachimadam,

¶16

Ramnad District-623 529.

¶17

.. Respondent/Petitioner/ Writ Petitioner

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters of Patent, against the common order dated 29.01.2016 made in W.M.P.(MD) No.1907 of 2016 in W.P.(MD)No.2192 of 2016.

¶19

Prayer in WMP(MD). 1907/ 2016 :

¶20

To grant an Ad Interim orders directing the 4th respondent District Educational Officer to provisional approve forthwith the appointment of J.Dhaaseheeli as BT Assistant (Science) in the petitioner school w.e.f. the date of her appointment on 02.07.2012 with all attendant benefits within a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reasonable time as may be prescribed by this Honble Court, pending disposal of the WP.

¶21

¶22

Prayer in WP(MD). 2192/ 2016 :

¶23

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 proceedings issued by the 4th respondent District Educational Officer in A.Thi.Mu.No.6061/Aa3/2013 dated 18.09.2013, quash the same and further Direct the 4th respondent District Educational Officer to approve forthwith the appointment of J.Dhanaseheeli as BT Assistant (Science) in the petitioner school w.e.f the date of her appointment viz., 02.07.2012 with all attendant benefits including the arrears of salary.

¶24

For Appellants : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

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

¶27

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 one J.Dhaaseheeli as B.T. Assistant (Science) in the respondent school and to pay salary to her from the date of her appointment, till the date of disposal of the writ petition.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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:

¶32

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

¶33

“4.In a similar writ appeal filed by the State in the Principal Bench, a Division Bench of this Court has

¶34

¶35

passed the following order in W.A.No.1299 of 2015, dated 14.09.2015.

¶36

'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.

¶37

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.

¶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/Assistant Registrar (AS)

¶43

/True Copy/

¶44

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

rj2 To

¶48

1.The Secretary,State of TamilNadu Department of School Education, Fort. St. George, Chennai – 9.

¶49

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6.

¶50

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Ramnad, Ramnad District.

¶51

4.The District Educational Officer, Ramnad, Ramnad District.

¶52

+1CC to Mr.Cibi Chakraborthy Advocate Sr.No.25108

¶53

GJM/SKS/SAR-I-1.6.16-4p-6C

¶54

W.A.(MD)No.685 of 2016 against WMP(MD)No.1907 of 2016 and WP(MD)No.2192 of 2016 and CMP(MD)No.4431 of 2016 28.04.2016

¶55

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

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs S.Selvapandi

The Regional Provident Fund Vs M/S. Tvs Sri Chakra Limited

S.Srinivasan, Chartered Vs the Secretary to Government

R.Kaliswaran Vs the District Collector

K.K.Dt Madha Saarbatra Vs the Secretary to Government

The Secretary, Vs J.Selvaraj