Madras High Court
R.Vinser Mencila vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 October, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.12579 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.12579 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.9834 of 2021
R.Vinser Mencila ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its Secretary
Department of School Education
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009
2.The Director of School Education
College Road, Chennai-600 006
3.The Chief Educational Officer
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District
4.The District Educational Officer
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District
5.The Correspondent
Christhu Raja Higher Secondary School
Palayamkottai-627 002
Tirunelveli District ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.12579 of 2021
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the
impugned proceedings issued by the fourth respondent District Educational
Officer in O.Mu.No.2411/A5/2021, dated 14.07.2021, quash the same and
further direct the respondents 3 and 4 herein to sanction forthwith the annual
increments and other allowances towards the salary of petitioner as BT
Assistant History in the fifth respondent School for the year 2011-2012 and
2012-2013.
For Petitioner : Ms.Amala.A.
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam
Government Counsel for R1 to R4
ORDER
The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 14.07.2021, passed by the
fourth respondent and to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to sanction forthwith
the annual increments and other allowances towards the salary of the
petitioner as BT Assistant (History) in the fifth respondent School for the year
2011-2012 and 2012-2013.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.12579 of 2021
2. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as B.T.Assistant
(History) on 01.02.2011 in the fifth respondent School, which is a Minority
Institution. Though the fourth respondent, vide proceedings dated
31.05.2011, accorded approval to the petitioner's appointment and disbursed
the grant-in-aid towards her salary, did not sanction the annual increments,
leave salary and other benefits. Therefore, the fifth respondent School, on
16.02.2021, submitted a proposal to the fourth respondent requesting annual
increment and other benefits. However, the fourth respondent, by the
impugned order dated 14.07.2021, returned the said proposal on the ground
that the petitioner has not completed the Teacher Eligibility Test. Challenging
the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that in a similar circumstances, in W.P.(MD) No.16428 of 2018 etc., batch,
vide order dated 26.07.2018, this Court allowed the writ petitions and the writ
appeals filed as against the said order, have also been dismissed, by
Judgment dated 17.11.2019 in W.A.(MD) No.1413 of 2019. Therefore, the
learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for setting aside the impugned order
passed by the fourth respondent.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.12579 of 2021
4. The learned Government Counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 to 4 would submit that as against the Judgment, dated
17.11.2019 in W.A.(MD) No.1413 of 2019, no further appeal has been
preferred by the respondents.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and
carefully perused the materials available on record.
6. On perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that
this Court, in a similar circumstances, by order dated 26.07.2018 in W.P.(MD)
No.16428 of 2018 etc., batch, directed the respondents to award annual
increment to the teachers, like the petitioner, who are working in Minority
Institutions, without passing Teacher Eligibility Test. Further, both sides
admitted that the aforesaid issue is now under reference before the
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Aswini vs. Thenappan. Hence,
this Court is of the view that subject to the outcome of the said case, the
petitioner's case can be considered.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.12579 of 2021
7. Accordingly, this Court passes the following orders:
(i) The fifth respondent School shall resubmit the
proposal to the fourth respondent seeking
sanction of annual increment and other benefits
payable to the petitioner, from the date of her
appointment i.e.01.02.2011, within a period of
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order;
(ii) On receiving such resubmission of proposal by
the fifth respondent School, the fourth
respondent, without insisting upon the pass in
Teacher Eligibility Test, shall consider the same
on merits and in accordance with law and pass
orders on merits and in accordance with law, if
the petitioner is otherwise found to be eligible,
within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.12579 of 2021
8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.10.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
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.
krk
To:
1.The Secretary,
Department of School Education,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.12579 of 2021
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
krk
W.P.(MD) No.12579 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.9834 of 2021
21.10.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
