Madras High Court
S.Devavaram Selva Jeberson vs The District Educational Officer on 24 June, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.10505 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.(MD) No.10505 of 2021
S.Devavaram Selva Jeberson ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The District Educational Officer,
Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Block Education Officer No.II,
Kalakad Union, Kalakad.
3.The Hindu Primary School
(A Minority Institution),
Represented by its Correspondent,
Panditharkurichi Village,
Paththai Post, Kalakad,
Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and
2 to pay the yearly increment to the petitioner by approving the
sanction of yearly increment from 01.10.2018 as per the proposal
forwarded by the third respondent and pay all monetary benefits within
the time fixed by this Court.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.10505 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr. H.Arumugam
For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to
pay the yearly increment to the petitioner by approving the sanction of
yearly increment from 01.10.2018 as per the proposal forwarded by the
third respondent and pay all monetary benefits within the time fixed by
this Court.
2.Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan, learned Government Advocate takes
notice on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2. By consent of both parties,
this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission
itself.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on
03.10.2017 in a sanctioned vacancy due to the superannuation of one
J.Helen Arul Emiman in the third respondent School, which is a
recognised aided minority educational institution. His appointment was
approved on 12.03.2018 by the District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.10505 of 2021
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was paid only salary, but was not given yearly
increment due from 01.10.2018 without any reason. Once the
appointment is approved, the teacher is entitled to all other monetary
benefits. Hence, the petitioner requested the second respondent and
the same was kept pending for non-compliance of Teachers Eligibility
Test qualification. In pursuance of 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.10505 of 2021
institutions. The Principal Bench of this Hon'ble 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
increment 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 he is entitled to
yearly increment and hence, he 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 Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
6. From the above contention, it is seen that according to the
petitioner, even though the third respondent has sent request on
04.05.2021 to the first respondent through second respondent to
disburse the yearly increments to the petitioner, no such order was
passed by the second respondent in writing. In any event, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.10505 of 2021
respondents 1& 2 have not passed any orders on the request and
reminders 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 relief to the petitioner therein. The
relevant portion of the said 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.10505 of 2021
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.10505 of 2021
impediment has been cited in the impugned
order, except the guidelines to be issued 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 was appointed as
Secondary Grade Teacher in the third respondent School, which is
admittedly a recognised minority aided School and the appointment has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.10505 of 2021
also been made within the sanctioned strength. As per the judgment in
Pramati Educational Cultural Trust and others vs. Union of India
reported 2014 (4) MLJ 486 (SC), a qualification of pass in Teachers
Eligibility Test is not mandatory for the Teacher appointed in the
minority institution.
8. For the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The third
respondent is directed to resubmit 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 increment and other monetary benefits to the petitioner with
effect from the date of appointment i.e., on 03.10.2017 and pass orders
on merits and in accordance with law.
9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No 24.06.2021
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.10505 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,
Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Block Education Officer No.II,
Kalakad Union, Kalakad.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.10505 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
am
W.P.(MD)No.10505 of 2021
24.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
