Appeal by State against Single Bench ordering appointment approval with retrospective effect. Court upheld Single Bench view that TET not needed for minority institution and post conversion backdates to vacancy date.
Appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher approved with effect from 01.08.2011 and consequential benefits extended within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.06.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A.[MD].No.421 of 2014 and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014
: Appellants
Vs.
T.Managaseri (Post), Krishnaperi, Virudhunagar District represented By Rev.Fr.Correspondent : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, praying to set aside the order dated 21.01.2014 made in W.P.No.11030 of 2013.
Prayer in WP(MD). 11030/ 2013 :
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 of the 4th respondent dated 04/06/2012 in Na.ka.no. 1734/m7/2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the 4th respondent to approve petitioner appointment in the post of Graduate Teacher (History) in the 5th respondent school with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ effect from 01/08/2011 and consequently pay arrears of salary and all other consequent monetary and attendant benefits .
2
For Appellants : Mr.V.Muruganantham Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. ]
Heard Mr.V.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2.This appeal, by the State is directed against the order dated 21.01.2014, made in W.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2013. The first respondent herein, filed the writ petition to quash the order dated 04.06.2012, passed by the fourth appellant herein and consequently, direct the appellants 1 to 4 to approve the respondent's appointment to the post of Graduate Teacher (History) in the second respondent school with effect from 01.08.2011.
3.Two impediments were pointed out by the fourth appellant herein, reiterating the grounds in the memorandum of the Writ Appeal. Firstly, the first respondent / Writ Petitioner did not pass the Teachers Eligibility Test [for brevity “TET”]. Secondly, the post was originally occupied by the Secondary Grade Teacher and on she attaining superannuation, the post fell vacant. Only when the department grants approval for conversion of the post to a Graduate Teacher post, approval can be granted.
4.The first issue is as to whether TET is required or not, has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the second respondent institution being a Minority Aided Institution, the question of insistence of pass in TET is not necessary. That apart, as of 2013, the first respondent / Writ Petitioner has passed TET. With regard to the second issue, a Secondary Grade Teacher was working in the said school and was appointed when the school was as a Middle School, prior to it being upgraded as a High School. Thus, on upgradation, the post has to be converted as a Graduate Teacher post and such conversion being admitted, should take effect from the date on which the post fell vacant. In the instant case, it would be 03.05.2011. The respondent / Writ Petitioner was appointed on 01.08.2011. Thus, as on the said date, the post was a Graduate Teacher Post. With regard to this aspect, the learned Single Bench, took note of the decision in the case of Corporate Manager, CSI Corporate Schools Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education and others reported in 2006 (5) CTC 504.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.On an examination of the reasons assigned by the learned Single Bench, we are of the view that the Court had come to a
3
correct conclusion and granted the relief to the respondent / writ petitioner. In the light of the above, the appellant has not made out any grounds to interfere with the order dated 21.01.2014.
7.In the result, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (Writs)
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
MR/RMK
PSM/GT/SAR2/10.07.2017/3P/6C
JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.[MD].No.421 of 2014 27.06.2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether TET qualification is mandatory for appointment in a Minority Aided Institution.
Whether post upgradation conversion backdates to the date the original post fell vacant.
Whether the Single Bench correctly allowed the respondent's appointment with date of effect from 01.08.2011.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Government of Tamil Nadu
Chitra
Veeramamunivar High School
Secretary to Government, School Education Department
Director of School Education
Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
P.VELMURUGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
