Dismissed

The Chief Educational Officer v. a.X.Mino

Madras HC16 Oct 2024WA(MD)/1855/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging a Writ Court order that approved the appointment of A.X.Mino as B.T Assistant in English in a minority school. The court refused to interfere, upholding the finding that surplus teachers and lack of TET are invalid objections for minority schools.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

The Chief Educational Officer Vs a.X.Mino — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.1855 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

W.A(MD)No.1855 of 2024 and

¶7

C.M.P.(MD)No.14041 of 2024

¶8

1.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District.

¶9

2.The District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District. ... Appellants / Respondents 1 & 2 -vs1.A.X.Mino ... 1^st Respondent/ Writ Petitioner 2.The Correspondent, Child Jesus Girls' Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. ... 2^nd Respondent / 3^rd Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 11.12.2023 in W.P.(MD)No.11101 of 2023.

¶11

For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Special Government Pleader For R-1 : Mr.V.Panner Selvam

¶12

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

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

W.A(MD)No.1855 of 2024

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

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

¶17

Challenge is to the order of the writ Court directing approval of the appointment of the 1^st respondent as B.T.Assistant in English.

¶18

The main ground of rejection was that there are surplus teachers in other aided schools. This Court has held that availability of surplus teachers in other aided schools cannot be a ground for rejecting approval if the post is a sanctioned post.

¶19

The absence of TET qualification is also made a ground. Even that ground has been rejected by this Court and this Court has consistently held that TET qualification is not necessary for appointment in a minority school.

¶20

Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the writ Court. The Writ Appeal therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed. It is also seen that the approval has been granted to the appointment after the disposal of the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.] 16.10.2024

¶22

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

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 4_

¶24

W.A(MD)No.1855 of 2024

¶25

¶26

1.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District.

¶27

2.The District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District.

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 4_

¶29

W.A(MD)No.1855 of 2024 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶30

Sml

¶31

W.A(MD)No.1855 of 2024

¶32

16.10.2024

¶33

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

The Chief Educational Officer v. a.X.Mino

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Educational Officer v. a.X.Mino

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

The Managing Director Vs K.Kannadhasan (Staff No.97DR3018)

The Chief Educational Officer Vs v Janet Swerna Rubi

Hari Anand Vs The Joint Commissioner

Jeyachandara Vs The District Collector

M/s.Gold Processors Vs The Commissioner of Customs

The Director Of School Education Vs S. Christabel Vimala