Dismissed

The Government of Tamil Nadu v. Arul Jenitta

Madras HC4 Oct 2024WA(MD)/1626/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Government appealed against an order approving the appointment of a Graduate Teacher in a minority institution school. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appointment was made in a sanctioned vacancy based on prior staff fixation and rejecting the Government's argument that lack of subsequent staff fixation justified refusal. The Court directed approval of the appointment with fi

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; Directors/Officers directed to approve appointment within eight weeks and pay arrears with 6% interest within twelve weeks.

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs Arul Jenitta — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.1626 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.A(MD)No.1626 of 2024 and

¶7

C.M.P.(MD)No.12718 of 2024

¶8

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶9

2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-6.

¶10

3.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o. the Chief Educational Officer, Tenkasi District.

¶11

4.The District Educational Officer,

¶12

O/o. the District Educational Officer, Tenkasi District. ... Appellants / Respondents 1 to 4

¶13

-vs-

¶14

1.Arul Jenitta ... 1^st Respondent / Writ Petitioner

¶15

2.The Correspondent, St. Michaels Girls Higher Secondary School, Tenkasi-627 811. ... 2^nd Respondent / 5^th Respondent

¶16

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________

¶18

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶19

W.A(MD)No.1626 of 2024

¶20

judgement dated 02.09.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.18522 of 2022.

¶21

For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Special Government Pleader For R-1 : Fr.S.Savarimuthu, for M/s. Father Xavier Associates For R-2 : No appearance

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]

¶24

The Government is on appeal against the order of the learned single Judge, directing approval of the appointment of the 1^st respondent as Graduate Teacher in Science in the 2^nd respondent school.

¶25

The 2^nd respondent school claimed approval for appointment of the 1^st respondent as a Graduate Teacher in Tamil on 21.01.2021, since Tmt.P.Margaret Shanthi had retired voluntarily on 31.12.2020. The approval sought for by the management was rejected on the ground that since no staff fixation has been done for the years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, the approval cannot be granted. The Writ Court found the rejection unsustainable, since the appointment was made to a sanctioned post by a Minority Institution. The authorities cannot refuse approval unless it is shown that there are surplus teachers either in the school or in

¶26

the corporate management. The fact that the staff fixation was not done,

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________

¶28

Page 2 of 5

¶29

W.A(MD)No.1626 of 2024

¶30

cannot be a ground for refusing approval.

¶31

We have heard, Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.S.Savarimuthu appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶32

Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the appointment was made during the time when the lock down due to Covid-19 was in force and in the absence of staff fixation, it cannot be gathered as to whether the teacher appointed is within the strength available in the school.

¶33

We do not think, these grounds can be sustained. The appointment is made by a Minority Institution in a sanctioned vacancy and according to the staff fixation done for the year 2019-2020, the school is entitled to four Graduate Teachers in Science. One of the Graduate Teachers retired voluntarily paving way for appointment of the 1^st respondent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 1^st respondent's appointment would lead to there being surplus teachers in the school. We are therefore, unable to find fault with the writ Court for having directed approval of the appointment.

¶34

The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶35

W.A(MD)No.1626 of 2024

¶36

appellants will approve the appointment of the 1^st respondent with effect from 20.01.2021 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All financial benefits including salary due to the 1^st respondent shall be paid within a period of twelve (12) weeks from today. The salary will carry interest at 6 percentage per annum from the date of on which it became due till the date of payment. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]

¶38

04.10.2024

¶39

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet: Yes Sml

¶40

To 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶41

2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-6.

¶42

3.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o. the Chief Educational Officer, Tenkasi District.

¶43

4.The District Educational Officer, O/o. the District Educational Officer, Tenkasi District.

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 5_

¶45

W.A(MD)No.1626 of 2024 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶46

Sml

¶47

W.A(MD)No.1626 of 2024

¶48

04.10.2024

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 5 of 5_

The Government of Tamil Nadu v. Arul Jenitta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Tamil Nadu v. Arul Jenitta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Yuvaraja Vs The Director General of Police

The Agricultural Production Commissioner And Vs J. Murugabharathi

The Chief Educational Officer Vs The Correspondent

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd, Vs S. Pavalakoodan

P.L.Muthu Vs the District Collector

The Director of School Educaiton Vs S Jenifer Wills