Allowed

The State of Tamilnadu v. S.M.Queen

Madras HC28 Apr 2016WA(MD)/817/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ appeal challenging an interim order directing the State to approve a teacher's appointment in a minority school. The Court, relying on a consent order from a related matter pending the Supreme Court's decision on TET qualifications for minority schools, refused to direct State approval but ordered salary continuity without termination.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to receive salary during employment tenure and not to be removed from service pending the final disposal of the writ petition, subject to the final outcome of the rel

The State of Tamilnadu Vs S.M.Queen — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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.817 of 2016 and CMP(MD)No.5052 of 2016

¶7

The State of TamilNadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

The District Educational Officer, District Educational Office, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. .. Appellants Vs. 1. S.M.Queen B.T.Assistant St.Josephs Convent Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District

¶11

The Correspondent, St.Josephs Convent Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters of Patent, to set aside the interim order, dated 18.12.2015 passed in M.P. (MD) No.2 of 2015 in W.P.(MD) No.22896 of 2015.

¶13

Prayer in MP(MD). 2/ 2015 in WP(MD).22896/2015 :

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To pass an order of Interim Direction, directing the Respondents to provide temporary approval of the petitioners

¶15

¶16

appointment and provide monthly salary to the Petitioner pending disposal of the instant WP.

¶17

Prayer in WP(MD). 22896/ 2015 :

¶18

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in O.Mu.No.02091/Aa1/2014 dt.16.04.2015 on the file of the Respondent No.4 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the 4th Respondent to approve the appoint of the petitioner as B.T.Assistant (Science) in the 5th Respondent school with effect from the date of appointment on 03.11.2011 with all attendant benefits within a stipulated time that may be prescribed by this Honble Court.

¶19

For Appellants : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader For R1 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

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

¶22

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 (Science) 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

5.Inasmuch as the learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner has consented for a similar order as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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

¶27

¶28

same lines:

¶29

“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.

¶30

'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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar (AS)

¶38

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

¶39

/True Copy/

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

The District Educational Officer, District Educational Office, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶47

TE/PEK/SAR-I : 08/06/2016 : 4P/5C

¶48

W.A.(MD)No.817 of 2016 and M.P.(MD) No.5052 of 2016 28.04.2016

¶49

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

The State of Tamilnadu v. S.M.Queen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamilnadu v. S.M.Queen

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