Dismissed

The Director of School Education v. Revathy

Madras HC25 Nov 2019WA(MD)/1435/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed two Writ Appeals filed by the School Education Department against a single judge order that allowed teachers' appointment petitions in minority institutions. The Court held that since an identical issue was recently decided against the Government, the appeals lacked merit and are dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals are dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

The Director of School Education Vs Revathy — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.A.(MD)Nos.1435 and 1436 / 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.11.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI

¶5

W.A.(MD)Nos.1435 and 1436 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.11630 and 11632 of 2019

¶6

1.The Director of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai.

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

... Appellants in both appeals

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.Revathy ..1^st Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.1435/19

¶12

1.Manimozhi Gnana Rani ..1^st Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.1436/19

¶13

2.The Correspondent,

¶14

West Tirunelveli Higher Secondary School, Nallur, Tirunelveli District. .. 2^nd Respondent

¶15

in both appeals

¶16

COMMON PRAYER : Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 29.04.2019 passed in W.P. (MD)Nos.10948 and 10949 of 2019 on the file of this Court and dismiss the writ petition.

¶17

Prayer in WP(MD). 10948/ 2019 :

¶18

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 order passed by the 3rd respondent in O.Mu.No.2116 / Aa2 / 2018 dated 12/07/2018 and quash the same as illegal in so far as petitioners concerned and consequently direct the 2nd & 3rd respondent to approve the petitioners appointment proposal dated 05/07/2018 and confer all other service benefits such as yearly increments, incentives, earn leave, arrears of salary from the date of appointment (24.07.2017)

¶19

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

¶20

1/6

¶21

W.A.(MD)Nos.1435 and 1436 / 2019

¶22

Prayer in WP(MD). 10949/ 2019 :

¶23

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 order passed by the 3rd respondent in O.Mu.No.2116 / Aa2 / 2018 dated 12/07/2018 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd & 3rd respondent to approve the petitioners appointment proposal dated 05/07/2018 and confer all other service benefits such as yearly increments, incentives, earn leave, arrears of salary from the date of appointment (24.07.2017)

¶24

For Appellants : Mr.S.Srimathy Special Government Pleader For R1 : Mr.S.Chellapandian

¶25

(in both appeals)

¶26

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶27

[Judgment of this Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. ]

¶28

Heard Mr.S.Srimathy, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr.S.Chellapandian, learned counsel for the first respondent in both appeals. By consent on either side, these writ appeal are taken up for final disposal.

¶29

These appeals have been filed against the common order dated 29.04.2019 made in W.P.(MD)Nos.10948 and 10949 of 2019. By the said order, the writ petitions were disposed of and the matters were remitted back to the Department to pass necessary orders to grant approval to the writ petitioners' appointment. It is not disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that an identical issue was decided against the Government by allowing the appeal in W.A(MD)No.859 of 2019 on 26.09.2019. The operative portion of the order is quoted judgment reads as follows:-

¶30

5.This issue came up for consideration before several Division Benches of this Court and it has been held that the department cannot mandatorily insists the teachers working in minority institution to have TET qualification. One of the recent decision of the Division Bench is in P.Savarimuthu Maria George v. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District & Others [2018 0 Supreme (Mad) 4017] (W.A.(MD) No.948 of 2018), wherein the Division Bench noted all the decisions on this issue and allowed the appeal filed by the Teacher. It will be beneficial to refer to the following portions of the order.

¶31

“4.Shortly after the disposal of the Writ Petition which is the subject matter of this appeal, a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

2/6

¶33

W.A.(MD)Nos.1435 and 1436 / 2019

¶34

Division Bench of this Court in Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai -vs- S. Jeyalakshmi [(2016) 5 CTC 639], held in paragraph nos. 39 and 40, as follows:-

¶35

“39.In the decision relied upon by the

¶36

Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners in Ashwini Thanappan -vs- Director of Education [(2014) 8 SCC 272], the issue that arose for consideration related to the interpretation of Article 27. The matter was referred to the Bench of appropriate strength for further examination. Since the Learned Counsel submitted that the Judgment in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust is inconsistent with the Judgment of the Constitution Bench in P.A. Inamdar -vs- State of Maharashtra [(2005) 6 SCC 537]. The matter is pending consideration.

¶37

40.In view of the above, the contention of the Learned Additional Advocate General that the order of the Learned Single Judge directing the release of salary is not sustainable, in view of the reference of Ashwini Thanappan case to the Bench of appropriate strength, cannot be accepted, since the issue in P.A. Inamdar is with respect quota of admission of students in the unaided professional institutions, entrance test and fee structure. Therefore, the outcome of Ashwini Thanappan has nothing to do with the case on hand.”

¶38

It would also be relevant to refer the following paragraphs in that Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court:-

¶39

“52. However, the Government, before issuing G.O. Ms.No. 181 dated 15.11.2011, lost sight of one important fact, namely imposition of a condition on the Teachers, who were appointed prior to the issue of G.O., in non minority Schools, both aided and unaided, to qualify themselves with TET within a period of five years, in order to continue in service, would cause great hardship to them. Moreover, if the Teachers who have put in more number of years of service, could not pass TET within five years, their contribution in service would be in jeopardy. Further, it is seen that the percentage of pass in the TET examination conducted in 2012 and 2013 was very minimal.

¶40

56.We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Government may seek a clarification from the NCTE, in the light of what is stated in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶41

3/6

¶42

W.A.(MD)Nos.1435 and 1436 / 2019

¶43

the preceding paragraph, whether the prescription of minimum qualification of TET can be made applicable prospectively for the Teachers who were appointed subsequent to the date of issue of G.O., in both non minority and minority institutions and not retrospectively as the same would cause undue hardship to the Teachers who have been serving for a quite a long time.

¶44

58.In our opinion, non qualifying in TET by the Teachers already in service should not defeat the object of the Government to provide quality and standard education and therefore, the Government may, in the alternative, conduct a refresher course and also some interactive sessions during annual vacation, in order to ensure and enhance the quality of education.

¶45

60.In the light of the above, we are of the view that the Government cannot insist upon the minority institution, both aided or unaided, to abide by any Regulation framed under the provisions of the RTE Act. Therefore, we hold that G.O. Ms. No. 181, School Education (C2) Department dated 15.11.2011 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, is not applicable to the minority institutions.

¶46

62.However, keeping in mind the larger interest in which the Government has issued the above G.O.s, this Court feels that the minority institutions may also consider conducting a refresher course and also some interactive sessions to all the Teachers during annual vacation, in order to ensure and improve the quality of Teachers.”

¶47

The resultant effect of that decision is that it is not necessary for teachers in schools run by aided minority institutions to secure a pass in Teacher Eligibility Test for approving their appointment. The said view has been reiterated by the subsequent decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in K. Solomon Jeyaraj -vs- Secretary, Department of School Education (Judgment dated 25.11.2016 in W.A. (MD) No. 1437 of 2016), Y. Kanagaraj -vs- State of Tamil Nadu (Judgment dated 16.06.2017 in W.A. (MD) No. 724 of 2017) and K. Anita -vs- State of Tamil Nadu (Judgment dated 26.02.2018 in W.A. (MD) No. 1090 of 2017)”

¶48

6.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [2005 (5) CTC 201 (SC)] would submit that the respondent State being the controlling authority https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶49

4/6

¶50

W.A.(MD)Nos.1435 and 1436 / 2019

¶51

sanctioning aid for the minority institutions can always prescribe qualifications, salaries as well as experience and other conditions bearing on the merits of an individual for being appointed as a teacher of an educational institution. Further, it is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that if the contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is accepted and TET is not made applicable to the minority institutions, then it is a clear discrimination among the teachers because one set of teachers, who are working in the non-minority institutions, are under the threat of loosing their jobs for not possessing TET and the other set of teachers, who do not have TET, who are working at aided minority institutions, are safe and the same would be in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

¶52

7.In our considered view, various Division Benches have taken consistent stand as regards the legal position and in doing so reference has been made to the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India [2014(8) SCC 1], and a decision has been rendered. This Court does not find any ground to take a different view.

¶53

8.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned Writ Court was of the view that the appellant was not working after the impugned order dated 14.11.2013. However, the fact remains that since an order of stay was granted on 29.11.2013, the appellant is continuing to serve in the institution and as on date the appellant is working in another school of the same Educational Agency at Surandai. This submission is placed on record.

¶54

9.Thus, for the above reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed and order of the Writ Court in W.P.(MD) No.19467 of 2013 dated 25.07.2019 is set aside. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.”

¶55

There is no distinguishing feature pointed out before us by the appellants as to why the above decision should not be applied in the instant case. In the light of the above, these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

Assistant Registrar ()

¶58

// True Copy //

¶59

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶60

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

¶61

5/6

¶62

W.A.(MD)Nos.1435 and 1436 / 2019

¶63

¶64

¶65

1.The Director of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai. 2.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 3.The District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District. W.A.(MD)Nos.1435 and 1436 of 2019 25.11.2019

¶66

VB(21.01.2020) 6P 4C

¶67

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

¶68

6/6

The Director of School Education v. Revathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director of School Education v. Revathy

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 Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S.Vv Mineral

The Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S.Manian Bricks

The Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S.Dharson & Co.

Abraham Memorial Higher Secondary School Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

The Managing Director, Vs D.Radhakrishnan, (Driver) Retired

The General Manager Vs S.Raja