Madras High Court
Mrs.Archana vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 January, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P.(MD)No.28298 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.28298 of 2024
and WMP(MD).No.23982 of 2024
Mrs.Archana ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary
Department of School Education
Fort.St.George, Chennai -9
2.The Director of School Education
DPI Campus
College Road, Chennai – 6
3.The Chief Educational Officer
The office of the Chief Educational Officer
Dindigul District
4.The District Educational Officer (Secondary)
The office of the District Educational Officer
Dindigul District
5.The Correspondent
Holy Cross Girl's Higher Secondary School
Batlagundu, Dindigul District .....Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.28298 of 2024
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining
to the impugned proceedings, dated 12.11.2024 in Na.Ka.No.855/A5/2024 on the
file of the fourth respondent and quash the same in respect of the petitioner,
directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner
Mrs.Archana, working as B.T.Asst.(Science) in Holy Cross Girls' Higher
Secondary School, Batlagundu, Dindigul District w.e.f.22.02.2022 with all
service benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.Fr.S.Savarimuthu
For M/s.Father Xavier Associates
For Respondents :Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by a B.T.Assistant (Science)
Teacher challenging the order passed by the fourth respondent herein wherein the
proposal forwarded by the management for approving her appointment has been
rejected.
2.A perusal of the records reveals that the petitioner was appointed as
B.T.Assistant(Science) Teacher in the fifth respondent School with effect fom
22.02.2022 in the place arising out of the demise of one Sr.Mercy on 31.08.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The management has forwarded the proposal to the authority for fresh approval.
Under the impugned order dated 12.11.2024, the fourth respondent has rejected
the approval on the sole ground that the petitioner has not passed Teachers
Eligibility Test Examination. The said order is put to challenge in the present writ
petition.
3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the
fifth respondent School being a minority School, a pass in TET examination is
not mandatory for being appointed as a teacher in the said institution.
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents relying upon the counter had contended that there are surplus
B.T.Assistant (History) teahchers available within the Educational District when
the petitioner was appointed. Without deplying them, the school management
cannot seek for approval of appointment of the writ petitioner.
5.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the
material records.
6. The Hon'ble Division Bench of our High Court in a judgment reported in
2023-3-LW-112 ( The Director of School Education D.P.I. Campus, College
Road & others Vs. M.Velayutham & another) in Paragraph No.74(c) has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
categorically held that a pass in TET examination is not mandatory for being
appointed as a teacher in the minority institution. Therefore, the reason assigned
by the authority is not legally sustainable. As far as the plea with regard to the
District surplus is concerned, there is no allegation that there are surplus teachers
within the fifth respondent School or in the corporate management of the fifth
respondent School.
7.In view of the above said facts, the authorities cannot point out surplus in
other aided institutions as a legal impediment for approving the appointment of
the writ petitioner.
8.In view of the above said deliberations, the order impugned in the writ
petition is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the fourth
respondent. The fourth respondent is directed to forward the proposal to the third
respondent, who in turn shall pass orders approving the appointment of the writ
petitioner wtih effect from 22.02.2022, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
NCC: : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Department of School Education
Fort.St.George, Chennai -9
2.The Director of School Education
DPI Campus
College Road, Chennai – 6
3.The Chief Educational Officer
The office of the Chief Educational Officer
Dindigul District
4.The District Educational Officer (Secondary)
The office of the District Educational Officer
Dindigul District
5.The Correspondent
Holy Cross Girl's Higher Secondary School
Batlagundu, Dindigul District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
