Allowed

A.Antony Raj v. The District Educational Officer (Elementary)

Madras HC21 Oct 2024WP(MD)/18728/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a writ petition filed by a B.T. Assistant (Science) teacher against the rejection of his appointment proposal. The High Court directed the first respondent to consider a fresh proposal without referencing specific government orders or insisting on TET exam results.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the proposal dated 22.05.2024 without reference to G.O.Ms.No.165 or insisting on TET, to pass orders within 12 weeks.

A.Antony Raj Vs The District Educational Officer… — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.18728 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.18728 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD).No.15853 of 2024

A.Antony Raj

... Petitioner

1.The District Educational Officer (Elementary), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

The Block Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.

¶12

3.The Correspondent, R.C.Middle School, Veeravanallur, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents 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 pertaining to the order passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.No. 3079/A4/2020 dated 13.01.2021 and quash the same and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (Science) with effect from 16.03.2020 with salary and all other consequential benefits.

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD).No.18728 of 2024

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam For Respondents Nos.1 & 2 : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader For Respondent No.3 : M/s.K.Hema Karthikeyan

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The instant writ petition has been filed by a B.T. Assistant (Science) Teacher challenging the order passed by the 1 st respondent herein on 13.01.2021, wherein, the proposal submitted by the school management for approval of his appointment was rejected by citing five reasons.

¶20

2. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the 3 rd respondent school is a aided minority institution and therefore, the question of passing TET examination does not arise. He contends that the Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.76 of 2019 has already been disposed of. He also contends that the G.O.Ms.No.165, School Education Department dated 17.09.2019 is not in force as on today. He further contends that in view of the previous orders of this Court in various writ petitions, the question of following subject roster cannot be implemented by way of circulars, unless it is backed by a statutes. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that 2/6

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(MD).No.18728 of 2024

¶23

there are no surplus teachers in the corporate management in the academic

¶24

year 2019-2020. Hence he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶25

3. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that unless the documents mentioned in the impugned order are submitted by the management, the question of considering the approval does not arise. He further contends that the returned proposal under the impugned order has been re-submitted by the management on 22.05.2024 and hence, fresh orders have to be passed by the 2 nd respondent herein.

¶26

4. The first respondent is directed to consider the said proposal, dated 22.05.2024, without any reference to G.O.Ms.No.165, School Education Department dated 17.09.2019 or without insisting the petitioner to pass TET examination, and pass orders within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD).No.18728 of 2024

¶30

5. With the above said observation, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

21.10.2024

¶32

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gvn

¶33

4/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD).No.18728 of 2024

¶36

¶37

1.The District Educational Officer (Elementary), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶38

The Block Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.

¶39

3.The Correspondent, R.C.Middle School, Veeravanallur, Tirunelveli District.

¶40

5/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD).No.18728 of 2024

¶43

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

¶44

gvn

¶45

W.P(MD)No.18728 of 2024

¶46

21.10.2024

¶47

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

¶48

6/6

A.Antony Raj v. The District Educational Officer (Elementary)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Antony Raj v. The District Educational Officer (Elementary)

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

Ponnuraj.P Vs The State of Tamilnadu

R.Chellapandian Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M.Gowthami Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Manimegalai S Vs The Director of Elementary Education

Selvakumar.a Vs The District Collector

Mahalakshmi.B Vs The Principal Secretary