Madras High Court
K.Priya Pauline vs The District Educational Officer on 29 April, 2021
W.P(MD)No.8853 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P(MD)No.8853 of 2021
K.Priya Pauline ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Educational Officer,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District.
2.The Block Educational Officer,
Sengottai,
Tenkasi District.
3.The Correspondent,
AG Primary School,
Sengottai,
Tenkasi District – 627 809. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein
to disburse the yearly increments and all other monetary benefits to the
petitioner with effect from the date of appointment ie., 01.08.2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ajith Geethan
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu
Additional Government Pleader
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8853 of 2021
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
first respondent to disburse the yearly increments and all other monetary
benefits to the petitioner with effect from the date of appointment ie.,
01.08.2011.
2.Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu, learned Additional Government
Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.
3.According to the petitioner, she is working as a Secondary
Grade Teacher in the third respondent School, which is a recognised
aided minority educational institution. The petitioner was appointed as
Secondary Grade Teacher in a sanctioned vacancy with effect from
01.08.2011 and her appointment was approved by the first respondent,
vide proceedings in Ni.Mu.No.6792/Aa1/2012, dated 30.05.2012.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once
the appointment is approved, the teacher is entitled to all other
monetary benefits. Hence, the third respondent School submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8853 of 2021
several representations to the respondents 1 & 2, requesting to disburse
the yearly increments to the petitioner. Finally, on 10.02.2021, the third
respondent School sent a representation to the first respondent through
the second respondent requesting to disburse the yearly increments to
the petitioner. The respondents 1 & 2 have not passed any orders on
the representation submitted by the school. In pursuance of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, pass in “Teachers
Eligibility Test” was prescribed as an additional qualification for
appointment of Teachers, vide G.O.(Ms) No.181 (School Education (C2)
Department), dated 15.11.2011. As regards, the applicability of the
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, to
minority educational institutions are concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Pramati Educational Cultural Trust and others vs Union of
India reported in 2014(4) MLJ 486(SC) has categorically held that the
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is ultra
vires and the same cannot be applied to minority educational
institutions. Therefore, the qualification of pass in “Teacher Eligibility
Test” prescribed in pursuance of Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009, cannot be made applicable to minority
educational institutions. The Principal Bench of this Court, by order,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8853 of 2021
dated 24.08.2016, in a batch of Writ Petitions and W.A.Nos.213 & 572 of
2016 held that G.O(Ms) No.181, School Education (C2) Department,
dated 15.11.2011, is not applicable to minority educational institutions
and therefore, directed to approve the appointments made in the
minority educational institutions. As such, the petitioner is entitled for
yearly increments without pass in “Teachers Eligibility Test” as per the
aforesaid order passed by this Court. The petitioner was appointed as
Secondary Grade Teacher in the sanctioned post and she is entitled to
yearly increments and hence, she has come out with the present Writ
Petition for the above stated relief.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2.
6.From the above contention, it is seen that according to the
petitioner, even though the third respondent has sent a representation
on 10.02.2021 to the first respondent through the second respondent to
disburse the yearly increments to the petitioner, the second respondent
informed the petitioner orally that yearly increments have not been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8853 of 2021
disbursed to her, as she has not passed Teachers Eligibility Test. But, no
such order was passed by the second respondent in writing. In any
event, the respondents 1 & 2 have not passed any orders on the request
and remainders of the third respondent. The similar issue was considered
by this Court in W.P(MD)No.23701 of 2019, vide order, dated
11.11.2019. After considering the order, dated 26.07.2018 made in
W.P(MD)No.16428 of 2018, this Court granted the relief to the petitioner
therein. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
“3. The case of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent
School is a recognized minority aided School and the petitioner
was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the fifth
respondent School, in the sanctioned post. As such, the fifth
respondent sent the proposals for appointment to the third
respondent through fourth respondent, for approval and the
same was approved and the monthly salary of the petitioner
was alone disbursed, but, the respondents failed to confer all
service benefits to the petitioner, for which, a proposal dated
10.07.2017 was sent by the fifth respondent to the fourth
respondent. The same was not considered, for non-compliance
of TET qualification. Hence, the writ petitioner is before this
Court with the above said prayer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8853 of 2021
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court, by order,
dated 26.07.2018 in W.P(MD)No.16428 of 2018, at paragraph
Nos.7 and 8 held as follows:-
“7.In this case also, the petitioner was
appointed in the fourth respondent School, which
is admittedly a recognised minority aided School.
The appointment also has been made within the
sanctioned strength and the petitioner claimed
that, he is having every qualification to hold the
post. When that being the position, as no other
reason has been given in the impugned order,
except the reason of TET qualification, that too,
citing the reason that, no guidelines given by the
first respondent/Director to the lower level
approving authorities to approve such appointment
without TET qualification, this Court is of the firm
view that the impugned order cannot be sustained
and it is liable to be quashed.
8.In the result:-
(i) the impugned order is quashed and the
Writ Petition is allowed;
(ii) the matter is remitted back to the
respondents, especially, the second respondent,
who shall pass necessary orders with regard to the
grant of approval to the petitioner's appointment,
as no other impediment has been cited in the
impugned order, except the guidelines to be issued
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8853 of 2021
by the Director for making approval of the
Teachers, who have been appointed in the
minority aided School without TET qualification;
(iii) Such orders of approval shall be passed
within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order; and
(iv) It is needless to mention that, once the
approval is given, the petitioner is entitled to get
all service and monetary benefits, as per the
eligibility and the same shall also be paid to the
petitioner forthwith.”
5. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid order
holds good in favour of the petitioner herein, as she was
appointed in the fifth respondent School, which is admittedly a
recognised minority aided School; the appointment has also
been made within the sanctioned strength; the petitioner
claimed that she is having the required qualification to hold the
said post.”
7.In the present case, the petitioner's appointment was
approved by the first respondent, vide proceedings in Ni.Mu.No.
6762/Aa1/2012, dated 30.05.2012 and passing in Teachers Eligibility
Test is not mandatory for the Teacher appointed in the minority
institution, as per the judgment in Pramati Educational Cultural
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8853 of 2021
Trust and others vs. Union of India reported 2014 (4) MLJ 486
(SC).
8.For the above reasons, the third respondent is directed to
re-submit the proposal to the respondents 1 & 2 within a period of two
(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of
such proposal, the respondents 1 & 2 are directed to consider the
proposal of the third respondent, for disbursing the yearly increments
and other monetary benefits to the petitioner with effect from the date of
appointment i.e., on 01.08.2011 and pass orders on merits and in
accordance with law, within a period of four weeks.
9.In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
29.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8853 of 2021
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The District Educational Officer,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District.
2.The Block Educational Officer,
Sengottai,
Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8853 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
ps
W.P(MD)No.8853 of 2021
29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
