Madras High Court
S.Immanuvel vs The Joint Director Of Elementary on 22 February, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.25044 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD) No.25044 of 2018
and
W.M.P(MD) No.22707 of 2018
S.Immanuvel ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Director of Elementary
Education (Aided School),
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Block Educational Officer,
Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.
4.C.S.I. Boarding Middle School,
Rep. by its Correspondent,
Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent in
Na.Ka.No.927/A1/2018, dated 30.10.2018, quash the same and further
direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to approve forthwith the
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/7
W.P.(MD) No.25044 of 2018
appointment of petitioner as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in the 4th respondent-
school from 17.09.2018 onwards with salary and other attendant benefits
by converting the subject from Maths to Tamil.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondents : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam for R1 to R3
Additional Government Pleader
No Appearance for R4
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3.
2.The petitioner herein is working in the fourth respondent school
as B.T. Assistant (Tamil). The post of B.T. Assistant (Maths) in the
fourth respondent school is a sanctioned post, which fell vacant on
14.09.2018. The case of the respondent authority is that the fourth
respondent School, being a Minority Educational Institution, had
appointed the petitioner as a B.T. Assistant (Tamil) instead of B.T.
Assistant (Maths) and such conversion is impermissible. On this
ground, the fourth respondent's request for disbursement of grant-in-aid
was returned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.25044 of 2018
3.Admittedly, the fourth respondent's school is a minority school.
The issue as to whether the prior permission for conversion of a post was
required or not came up for consideration before this Court on various
occasions and in a series of orders, it was held that prior permission for
such conversion was not required, insofar as the minority schools are
concerned. In one such case, by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court, in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of School
Education and others Vs. J.Remila, it was held as follows:
“22.Admittedly, the Second Respondent Institution
is a Recognized Minority Institution and therefore,
Article 30 of the Constitution of India applies and
they have a right to establish and administer
Educational Institutions of their choice. The
Appellants have also not disputed the eligibility of
the First Respondent to hold the B.T. Assistant
(Social Science) post in the Second Respondent
Institution. The only bone of contention raised by
the Appellants is that without prior permission for
conversion of post from the Appellants, the Second
Respondent Institution cannot make appointment
of the First Respondent as B.T. Assistant (Social
Science) in the Second Respondent Institution.
................
29.After considering the various decisions, the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.25044 of 2018
Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 15 of the
judgment cited supra has held as follows:
?15.The above decisions clearly show that
autonomy of a minority institution does not
dispense with the requirement to act fairly and in a
transparent manner and the High Court in
exercise of its power of judicial review is entitled
to examine fairness of selection process.
Grievance of a citizen that he was treated unfairly
cannot be ignored on the ground that a minority
institution has autonomy or right of choice.
Exercise of right of choice has to be fair, non-
discriminatory and rational.?
30.In the case on hand, it is not the case of the
Appellants that the appointment procedure as
regards the First Respondent was not fair,
discriminatory and irrational. Therefore, applying
the ratio held in the judgment reported in (2017) 3
SCC 619, cited supra, it is held by this Court that
the grounds raised by the Appellants for
sustaining the impugned proceedings dated
19.05.2014 and 21.09.2015, does not deserve any
merit.
31.This Court opines that eventhough the State
has the power to regulate Minority Educational
Institutions in the interest of 'Efficiency',
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.25044 of 2018
'Discipline', 'Health', 'Sanitation', 'Morality',
'Public Order', the impugned proceedings dated
19.05.2014 in O.Mu.No.1143/83/2014, on the file
of the Third Appellant and the consequential
proceedings dated 21.09.2015 in O.Mu.No.
4309/AA1/2015, on the file of the Fourth
Appellant, do not come within those parameters
and therefore, the said impugned proceedings
interferes with an overall administrative control of
the Second Respondent Minority Institution over
its staff and abridges/dilutes their right to
establish and administer their Educational
Institution.”
4.The aforesaid order is self explanatory. Accordingly, the action
of the authorities in refusing to approve the petitioner's appointment as a
B.T. Assistant in fourth respondent school cannot be sustained.
5.Consequently, the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent in
Na.Ka.No.927/A1/2018, dated 30.10.2018, is hereby quashed. The
second respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the
petitioner as a B.T. Assistant (Tamil), if she is not otherwise dis-entitled
to, in the fourth respondent's school w.e.f. 17.09.2018 onwards together
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.25044 of 2018
with all attendant monetary benefits. The second respondent herein shall
endeavour to pass such approval orders atleast within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6.This writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.02.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TM
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 Joint Director of Elementary
Education (Aided School),
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Block Educational Officer,
Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.25044 of 2018
M.S.RAMESH, J.
TM
W.P.(MD) No.25044 of 2018
22.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
