Dismissed

The State of Tamil Nadu, v. the Correspondent

Madras HC22 Apr 2016WA(MD)/771/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench disposed of the Writ Appeal on the lines of a previous order in W.A.(MD) No.220/2016. The Court directed the State authorities not to terminate the respondent teacher and to pay her salary pending the final outcome of a related writ petition challenging the appointment criteria, without granting specific interim approval from the State.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to comply with orders directing non-termination and payment of salary pending the final disposal of the related writ petition, on the lines of W.A.(MD) No.220/2016.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs the Correspondent — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶8

W.A.(MD)No.771 of 2016

against

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013

and

W.P.(MD)No.7662 of 2013 and

¶13

CMP(MD)No.4725 of 2016

¶14

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

¶15

Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶16

2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 009.

¶17

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District 629 001.

¶18

4.The District Educational Officer, Thuckalay 629 175, Kanyakumari District.

¶19

.. Appellants/Respondents/Respondents

¶20

Vs.

¶21

The Correspondent,

¶22

St. Lawrence Higher Secondary School, Madathattuvilai, Villukuri Post-629 180, Kanyakumari District.

¶23

.. Respondent/Petitioner

¶24

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters of Patent, against the common order dated 30.04.2013 made in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 in W.P.(MD)No.7662 of 2013.

¶25

Prayer in MP(MD). 1/ 2013 in WP(MD).7662/2013 :

¶26

To grant an Ad Interim Orders directing the 4th respondent District Educational officer to approve the appointment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of A. Daisy Francisca as BT Assistant (History) in the petitioner school w.e.f. the date of her appointment on 15.09.2011 with all attendant beneifits within a reasonable time as may be prescribed

¶27

¶28

by this Honourable Court with a condition that she should pass the Teachers Eligibility Test within 5 years from the date of appointment.

¶29

Prayer in WP(MD). 7662/ 2013 :

¶30

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th respondent District Educational officer to approve forthwith the appointment of A. Daisy Francisca as BT Assistant (History) in the petitioner school w.e.f. the date of her appointment on 15.09.2011 with all attendant beneifits including the arrears of salary and allowances.

¶31

For Appellants : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader

¶32

For Respondent : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

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

¶35

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 A.Daisy Francisca as B.T. Assistant 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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ it fit to extract the same and dispose of the Writ Appeal on the same lines:

¶40

¶41

“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.

¶42

'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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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

¶47

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.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶50

/True Copy/

¶51

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

¶52

Sub Assistant Registrar (CS)

¶53

¶54

To
1.The Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 006.
2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District 629 001.
4.The District Educational Officer, Thuckalay 629 175, Kanyakumari District.
+1cc to the Special Government Pleader, Sr.No.23453
rj2
JM/SK-SKN/23.06.2016/4P-6C
W.A.(MD)No.771 of 2016 22.04.2016

¶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

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