Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs The Correspondent on 16 October, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A(MD)No.1822 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A(MD)No.1822 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.13789 and 13790 of 2024
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Higher 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. ... Appellants / Respondents
-vs-
The Correspondent,
St. Xaviers Higher Secondary School,
Palayamkottai-627 002,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent/ Writ Petitioner
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the
order dated 02.09.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.12898 of 2021.
For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Maharajan,
Special Government Pleader
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 4
W.A(MD)No.1822 of 2024
For respondent : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar,
For M/s.Isaac Chambers
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
The appeal is by the State against the orders made in W.P.(MD)No.
12898 of 2021 approving the appointment of one I.Joseph Rozari Jerom as
a B.T.Assistant in Tamil with effect from 01.07.2015 in the respondent
school.
2. The reasons for rejection were two. One is that the retired teacher
in whose place the said I.Joseph Rozari Jerom was appointed was a
Secondary Grade Teacher and no approval was obtained for upgradation.
The second reason is that there are surplus teachers in other schools in
the district. Both these reasons have been held to be bad by the learned
single Judge. We had also considered the said grounds of rejection in W.A.
(MD)No.1645 of 2024 and W.A.(MD)No.1445 of 2024 wherein it was
specifically held that the upgradation of a Secondary Grade Teacher as a
Graduate Teacher under G.O.Ms.No.79 is automatic and it does not
require any prior approval. We have also held that the availability of
surplus teachers in schools under the different management cannot be a
ground to reject the request for approval if there are no surplus teachers in
the same management or in a stand alone institution. The respondent is a
stand alone minority institution and it does not come under a corporate
management. In State of Tamil Nadu and others .vs. Esakki Muthu
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and another, dated 21.09.2023, this Court has held that the prohibition
imposed in Iruthaya Amali's case which was decided on 31.03.2021 will
only be prospective. The appointment in this case has been made as early
as on 01.07.2015. Hence, both the grounds of rejection cannot be
sustained. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal.
3. The Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly Writ Appeal is
dismissed. The appellants will approve the appointment and also pay the
entire salary due to the teacher concerned within a period of twelve (12)
weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
16.10.2024
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet: Yes
Sml
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Higher 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
16.10.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
