Dismissed

The State of Tamil Nadu v. J. John Baptista

Madras HC26 Mar 2018WA(MD)/450/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed three writ appeals filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against lower court orders. The court relied on a Division Bench judgment holding that the mandate for teachers to clear the Teacher Eligibility Test does not apply to minority institutions under Article 30.

What did the court decide?

No relief; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs J. John Baptista — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 26.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶7

W.A.[MD].Nos.450 to 452 of 2018 and C.M.P.[MD].Nos.2668 to 2670, 2728 & 2729 of 2018

¶8

W.A.[MD].No.450 of 2018:

¶9

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶10

Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education,

¶11

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶13

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

¶14

4.The District Educational Officer,

¶15

Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

¶16

:Appellants/Respondents 1 to 4

¶17

Vs.

¶18

1.J.John Baptista :1^st Respondent/Writ Petitioner.

¶19

2.The Correspondent,

¶20

R.C.High School, Devipattanam, Sivagiri Taluk – 627 757,

¶21

Tirunelveli District. :2^nd Respondent/5^th Respondent.

¶22

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 21.06.2013 passed in W.P.(MD)No.9902 of 2013.

¶23

Prayer in WP(MD). 9902/ 2013 :

¶24

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Impugned Proceedingss issued by the 3rd respondent Chief Educational Officer, in Na.Ka.No.12669/Aa2/2012 dated 21.05.2013 quash the same in so far https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as the petitioner is concerned.

¶25

¶26

W.A.[MD].No.451 of 2018:

¶27

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶28

Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶29

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶30

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

¶31

4.The District Educational Officer, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

¶32

: Appellants/Respondents 1 to 4

¶33

Vs.

¶34

1.M.Jasmila

¶35

:1^st Respondent/Writ Petitioner

¶36

2.The Correspondent, R.C.High School, Devipattanam, Sivagiri Taluk – 627 757,

¶37

Tirunelveli District.

¶38

:2^nd Respondent/5^th Respondent.

¶39

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 21.06.2013 passed in W.P.(MD)No.9903 of 2013.

¶40

Prayer in WP(MD). 9903/ 2013 :

¶41

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent chief Educational officer in Na.Ka.No. 12669/Aa2/ 2012 dated 21.05.2013, Quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶42

W.A.[MD].No.452 of 2018:

¶43

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Through Director of School Education, DPI Compound,

¶44

Chennai.

¶45

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶46

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

¶47

3.The District Educational Officer, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

¶48

: Appellants/Respondents

Vs.

1.P.Jeyalakshmi

2.The Correspondent,

Suyambulingam Hr. Sec. School, T.N.Pudukudi, Puliyangudi, Tirunelveli District.

¶54

:2nd Respondent/4^th Respondent

¶55

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 21.06.2013 passed in W.P.(MD)No.9911 of 2013.

¶56

Prayer in WP(MD). 9911/ 2013 :

¶57

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records pertaining to the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.12669/Aa2/2012 dated 21.05.2013 and quash the same and further direct the Respondents to disburse the Petitioner s Salary from June 2013 till passing TET Exam.

¶58

For Appellants : Mr.M.Murugan, Government Advocate For Respondents : No appearance (In all appeals)

¶59

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶60

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice]

¶61

In view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Secretary to Government v. Ms.S.Jeyalakshmi, reported in (2016) 7 Madras Law Journal 155, holding that the Government Order, being G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15/11/2011, requiring Teachers to clear Teacher Eligibility Test for appointment for Primary Schools did not apply to Minority Institutions entitled to the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, these appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶64

/True Copy/

¶65

Sub Assistant Registrar

1.The Secretary,

State of Tamil Nadu,

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶70

¶71

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶72

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

¶73

4.The District Educational Officer, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

¶74

+1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No.58563

¶75

COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.[MD].Nos.450 to 452 of 2018 and C.M.P.[MD].Nos.2668 to 2670, 2728 & 2729 of 2018 26.03.2018

¶76

RR/GK

¶77

TE/SV MMS/SAR 4/13.04.2018/4P/6C

¶78

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

The State of Tamil Nadu v. J. John Baptista

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamil Nadu v. J. John Baptista

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.Yesudian, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Hajar Beevi Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthukaruppan Vs the Commissioner of Police

N.Muthusamy Vs the Management of Tamil Nadu

P.v.Surendran, S/O.Late Vs the Secretary to the Govt

M.Muthiah Vs the Secretary to State of