Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Hairathul Jamalia Higher ... on 15 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1371 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1371 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD) No.5712 of 2021
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Department of School Education,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2. The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Chief Educational Office,
Ramnad District.
4. The District Educational Officer,
District Educational Office,
Paramakudi, Ramnad District. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
Hairathul Jamalia Higher Secondary School,
Rep. by its Correspondent,
C.A.Sadique Basha,
Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/5
W.A.(MD)No.1371 of 2021
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of
this Court made in W.P.(MD) No.12389 of 2020, dated 23.09.2020.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Standing Counsel for Government
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]
We have heard Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Government Counsel
appearing for the appellants.
2. This appeal filed by the State is directed against the order dated
23.09.2020, in W.P(MD).No.12389 of 2020.
3. Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Government Counsel appearing for the
appellants submitted that the teacher for whom the Management has given a
proposal has not passed the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), which is a
qualification prescribed under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009. If the argument that the Teachers Eligibility Test is not
made applicable to minority institutions is accepted, it would be a clear
discrimination among the teachers. Further, it is submitted that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the celebrated decision in the case of Tma Pai Foundation &
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1371 of 2021
Ors., v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,, has held that the Government has authority
to prescribe the qualification of teachers and the same would be applicable to
minority institutions also.
4. In this regard, the learned Government Counsel appearing for the
appellants has referred to paragraph No.5(c) of the judgment. Further, the issue
which is raised in this appeal was considered in W.P(MD).No.18489 of 2019
and W.P(MD).No.7574 of 2018 and the said writ petitions have been directed to
be placed before the Division Bench after impleading the Ministry of Human
Resource and Development Department, Government of India, New Delhi, on
the ground that the decision in the case of Pramati Educational and Cultural
Trust v. Union of India & Ors., has not dealt with the Teachers Eligibility Test
issue.
5. In our considered view, the necessity to adjudicate the above
grounds raised by the learned Government Counsel may not arise in this appeal,
on account of the nature of direction issued by the learned Single Bench. In
paragraph No.6 of the impugned order, the direction issued to the fourth
appellant is to consider the proposal of the respondent-School, who have sought
for sanction of annual increment to a teacher, who was appointed on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1371 of 2021
15.06.2011, as a B.T. Assistant (Tamil).
6. The learned Writ Court has directed to pass necessary orders on the
said proposal, which would mean that, orders have to be passed on merits and in
accordance with law. Thus it goes without saying, that when a proposal is
submitted by the Management, if the proposal is feasible of consideration, then
the Department may approve the proposal. But, if the proposal is defective for
certain reasons, the proposal can be returned for resubmission after complying
the defects and if the proposal is not feasible for consideration, then the
Department has to pass a speaking order, so that the Management as well as the
teacher will know as to what is the stand of the Department to enable them to
work out the other remedies available with them under the law.
7. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal and dispose
of this appeal with the observation that the fourth respondent shall comply with
the orders passed by the learned Single Bench by passing an order on merits and
in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No (T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
Internet :Yes/No 15.07.2021
pkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1371 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
pkn
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.
W.A.(MD)No.1371 of 2021
15.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
