Dismissed

The State of Tamilnadu, v. D.Vijya Rathinaraj

Madras HC21 Apr 2016WA(MD)/711/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench disposed of a writ appeal by consent order. Citing a pending Supreme Court constitutional question regarding teacher qualifications in minority schools, the court directed the State not to terminate the petitioner and to pay salary pending final disposal, similar to a previous consent judgment.

What did the court decide?

Directing appellants not to terminate the respondent and to pay her salary pending the final outcome of the writ petition.

The State of Tamilnadu, Vs D.Vijya Rathinaraj — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.04.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.711 of 2016

¶7

and

¶8

CMP(MD)No.4543 of 2016

¶9

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education (C2) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶10

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

¶11

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, O/o.District Elementary Educational Office,

¶12

Watrap, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, O/o.District Elementary Educational Office, Watrap, Virudhunagar District. .. Appellants

¶14

1.D.Vijay Rathinaraj

¶15

2.The Correspondent, CSI Primary School, Koomapatti, Virudhunagar District .. Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters of Patent, against the interim order of this Court, dated 27.01.2016 in W.M.P.(MD)No.1469 of 2016 in W.P.(MD)No.1706 of 2016.

¶17

Prayer in WP(MD). 1706/ 2016 :

¶18

Pleased to issue an order writ or direction in the nature of a Writ of Certorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceedings in Aa.The.MU. No.415/A2/2014 dated 30.12.2014 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to

¶19

¶20

approve the petitioner's appointment as a Secondary Grade Assistant teacher in the 5th respondent school...

¶21

Prayer in WP(MD). 1469/ 2016 :

¶22

Pleased to grant an Ad-Interim Direction directing the 4th respondent to to accord temporary provisional approval for appointment of the petitioner as a Secondary Grade Assistant Teacher in the 5th respondent school pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶23

For Appellants: Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan

¶24

Special Government Pleader

¶25

For R1 : Mr.V.Balasubramanian

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

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

¶28

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 a Secondary Grade Teacher, 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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

5.Inasmuch 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:

¶33

“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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14.09.2015.

¶34

'4.Be that as it may, the issue as to whether the

¶35

¶36

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/

¶43

Assistant Registrar(P&A)

¶44

/True copy/

¶45

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶46

¶47

1.The Secretary,

¶48

School Education (C2) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶49

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

¶50

2.The Director of School Education,

¶51

¶52

College Road, Chennai.

¶53

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, O/o.District Elementary Educational Office, Watrap, Virudhunagar District.

¶54

4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, O/o.District Elementary Educational Office, Srivilliputhur,

¶55

Watrap, Virudhunagar District.

¶56

SDR/DB/SAR I/06.06.2016/4P/5C

¶57

W.A.(MD)No.711 of 2016 21.04.2016

¶58

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

The State of Tamilnadu, v. D.Vijya Rathinaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamilnadu, v. D.Vijya Rathinaraj

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 Secretary, Vs Ganasundari

Nellai Maavatta Panjaalai Vs Ms/.Subburaj Textile Mills

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs P.Manikandan

R.Selvaraj Vs the Distric Collector

The District Elementary Vs P.Savarimuthu Maria

The Government of Tamilnadu, Vs R.Shoba Shanthini