Allowed

Arul Thai Suganthi v. District Educational Officer

Madras HC14 Mar 2018WP(MD)/2906/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court held that a teacher in a minority institution cannot be deprived of service benefits like leave and increments solely due to lack of TET qualification. The court quashed the rejection order and directed the department to grant benefits.

What did the court decide?

The order of rejection quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; issues to be considered at once.

Arul Thai Suganthi Vs District Educational Officer — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.2906 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.3078 and 3079 of 2018

¶7

Arul Thai Suganthi ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, at Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

2.The Correspondent, K.A.M.P. Meeraniya Higher Secondary School Kalakkad, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.No.3555/B4/2017 dated 09.10.2017 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to refund petitioners earn leave benefits for the sum of Rupees 21,526/- (7662 + 13864) further direct the respondents to disburse all service and monetary benefits including yearly increment earn leave etc. from the date of appointment (ie.02.01.2002)

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Chellapandian

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.K.Saravanan G.A., for R1 Mr.K.K.Kannan for R2

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner is working as BT Assistant in the second respondent school. The Second respondent is a minority institution. Therefore, the question of the petitioner requiring to acquire TET will not arise.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.It appears that the Department has taken a stand that since the petitioner is not having TET qualification, she cannot be given service benefits. According to the written instruction given to the

¶17

¶18

Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, all that the department would do in such cases is to release the salary alone and nothing more. This obviously cannot be correct. The fact that the writ petitioner is not having TET qualification cannot be put against her for depriving her of the other service benefits. The petitioner is permitted to lodge a formal application before the Management in this regard.

¶19

3.The learned counsel appearing for the Management undertakes to forward the same to the Department. As already pointed out, the first respondent will not deny the benefits due to the petitioner on the ground of not having cleared the TET examination. The order of rejection is quashed.

¶20

4.This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶23

/True copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

District Educational Officer,

¶27

Cheranmahadevi,

¶28

at Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.S.Chellapandian, Advocate, SR.No.55229. +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.55639.

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.2906 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.3078 and 3079 of 2018

¶31

14.03.2018

¶32

skn

¶33

RAM/RSK SKN/SAR 3/23.05.2018/2P/4C

¶34

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

Arul Thai Suganthi v. District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arul Thai Suganthi v. District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Muthumanoharan, Vs the Deputy Inspector General

Santhanam Vs the Joint Registrar of Co. Op.

Dr.S.N.Mohan Vs the Secretary to Government

K.Krishnaveni Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

Andrew Chandrakumar, Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

S.Ramasundaramani Vs the Principal Secretary