Madras High Court
S.M.Shanthi vs The District Educational Officer on 29 April, 2021
W.P(MD)No.8807 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.8807 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)No.6627 of 2021
S.M.Shanthi ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Educational Officer,
Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Block Educational Officer,
Kalaiyarkovil,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Correspondent,
R.C Middle School,
Soosaiapparpattinam,
Kalaiyarkovil,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in his
proceedings in O.Mu.No.259/A1/2021, dated 25.03.2021 and quash the
same and direct the first and second respondents to sanction yearly
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8807 of 2021
increments to the petitioner from the year 2012 onwards with all
consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
to quash the order passed by the second respondent, vide proceedings in
O.Mu.No.259/A1/2021, dated 25.03.2021 and directing the first and
second respondents to sanction yearly increments to the petitioner from
the year 2012 onwards with all consequential benefits.
2.Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam, learned Additional Government
Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.
3.According to the petitioner, she is working as
B.T (Assistant) in the third respondent School, which is a minority
institution. The petitioner was appointed as B.T (Assistant) in a
sanctioned vacancy with effect from 01.02.2012 and her appointment
was approved by the first respondent on 06.08.2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8807 of 2021
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 several
representations to the respondents 1 & 2, requesting to disburse the
yearly increments to the petitioner. Finally, on 15.03.2021, the third
respondent School sent a representation to the second respondent,
requesting to disburse the yearly increments to the petitioner. The
second respondent rejected the same, vide impugned order, dated
25.03.2021, on the ground that the petitioner has not passed Teachers
Eligibility Test. Challenging the said impugned order, the petitioner has
come out with the present Writ Petition.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8807 of 2021
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, 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
B.T (Assistant) in the sanctioned post and she is entitled to yearly
increments and prayed for allowing the Writ Petition.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8807 of 2021
7.From the above contention, it is seen that according to the
petitioner, the third respondent sent a representation on 15.03.2021 to
the second respondent to disburse the yearly increments to the
petitioner. But, the second respondent, vide impugned order, dated
25.03.2021, rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner has not
passed Teachers Eligibility Test. 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 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.8807 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.8807 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.”
8.In the present case, the petitioner's appointment was
approved by the first respondent, vide proceedings, dated 06.08.2012
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 Trust and others vs. Union of India reported
2014 (4) MLJ 486 (SC).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8807 of 2021
9.For the above reasons, the impugned order, dated
25.03.2021 passed by the second respondent is quashed. 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 in the year 2012 and pass orders on
merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks.
10.In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
29.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8807 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.8807 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
ps
W.P(MD)No.8807 of 2021
29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
