Madras High Court
The Director Of School Education vs Mrs.J.Prabha Vinothini. ... 1St on 9 September, 2020
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan, P.Rajamanickam
W.A.(MD)Nos.791, 794, 795 and 796 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
W.A.(MD)Nos.791, 794, 795 and 796 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD).Nos.4487, 4498, 4499 and 4500 of 2020
W.A.(MD)No.791 of 2020
1. The Director of School Education,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. ... Appellanta/
Respondents 1-3
Vs.
1. Mrs.J.Prabha Vinothini. ... 1st Respondent/
Writ petitioner
2. The Correspondent,
Barnenbruck Higher Secondary School,
Bungalow Surandai, Tirunelveli District. ... 2nd Respondent/
4th Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of
this Court made in W.P.(MD) No.2770 of 2019 dated 26.02.2019.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/10
W.A.(MD)Nos.791, 794, 795 and 796 of 2020
W.A.(MD)No.794 of 2020
1. The Director of School Education,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. ... Appellanta/
Respondents 1-3
Vs.
1. Mrs.C.Sylvia Jeya Rosy ... 1st Respondent/
Writ petitioner
2. The Correspondent,
Barnenbruck Higher Secondary School,
Bungalow Surandai, Tirunelveli District. ... 2nd Respondent/
4th Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of
this Court made in W.P.(MD) No.2773 of 2019 dated 26.02.2019.
W.A.(MD)No.795 of 2020
1. The Director of School Education,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. ... Appellanta/
Respondents 1-3
Vs.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/10
W.A.(MD)Nos.791, 794, 795 and 796 of 2020
1. Mrs.D.K.Shobana Tamil Selvi ... 1st Respondent/
Writ petitioner
2. The Correspondent,
Barnenbruck Higher Secondary School,
Bungalow Surandai, Tirunelveli District. ... 2nd Respondent/
4th Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of
this Court made in W.P.(MD) No.2772 of 2019 dated 26.02.2019.
W.A.(MD)No.796 of 2020
1. The Director of School Education,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. ... Appellanta/
Respondents 1-3
Vs.
1. Mrs.N.Melba ... 1st Respondent/
Writ petitioner
2. The Correspondent,
Barnenbruck Higher Secondary School,
Bungalow Surandai, Tirunelveli District. ... 2nd Respondent/
4th Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of
this Court made in W.P.(MD) No.2771 of 2019 dated 26.02.2019.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3/10
W.A.(MD)Nos.791, 794, 795 and 796 of 2020
For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Special Government Pleader
(in all the Writ Appeals)
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.S.Chellapandian
(in all the Writ Appeals)
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.) By consent, all the Writ Appeals are taken together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Mr.S.Chellapandian, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent.
3. Admittedly, the respondents/Writ petitioners are employed in the minority Schools and though their appointment have been approved, they have not cleared Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) examination and when the representations submitted on behalf of the educational institutions in which they are employed, the third respondent vide impugned proceedings had directed the School management to furnish the details, as to the passing of Teacher Eligibility Test by the private respondents/Writ petitioners and aggrieved by the same, Writ petitions were filed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4/10 W.A.(MD)Nos.791, 794, 795 and 796 of 2020
4. The learned Single Judge had taken up all the Writ petitions together and disposed of the same vide common order dated 26.02.2019 and it is relevant to extract the same hereunder:-
“3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court, by order, dated 26.07.2018 in W.P(MD)No.16428 of 2018, at 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, http://www.judis.nic.in 5/10 W.A.(MD)Nos.791, 794, 795 and 796 of 2020 as no other 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. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/official respondents would submit that the fact remains that, the passing of Teacher Eligibility Test is for the benefit of students for whom the education is important and therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the private respondents/Writ petitioners to clear the same and the said aspect has not been taken into consideration and it is also against the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors reported in LNIND 2002 SC 740.
6. Per contra, Mr.S.Chellapandian, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents/Writ petitioners would submit that in the light of yet another judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court http://www.judis.nic.in 6/10 W.A.(MD)Nos.791, 794, 795 and 796 of 2020 in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and others v. Union of India and others reported in 2014 (8) SCC 1 : 2014 4 MLJ 486, passing of Teacher Eligibility Test is not necessary in respect of Teachers employed in minority institution, especially, religious minority institution and as such, the common impugned order do not warrants interference.
7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.
8. In Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and others v. Union of India and others (cited supra), the Honourable Supreme Court of India in paragraph No.46, observed that “In our view, if the 2009 Act is made applicable to minority schools, aided or unaided, the right of the minorities under Article 30(1) of the Constitution will be abrogated. Therefore, the 2009 Act insofar it is made applicable to minority schools referred in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution is ultra vires the Constitution”. The said judgment has also been followed by this Court in various pronouncements.
9. In the light of the above cited legal position, grounds urged on behalf of the appellants lack merits. In the result, all the Writ Appeals are http://www.judis.nic.in 7/10 W.A.(MD)Nos.791, 794, 795 and 796 of 2020 dismissed, confirming the common order dated 26.02.2019 made in W.P. (MD).Nos.2770, 2771, 2772 and 2773 of 2019. The appellants/official respondents are directed to comply with the common order dated 26.02.2019, passed in W.P.(MD).Nos.2770, 2771, 2772 and 2773 of 2019, as confirmed in these Writ Appeals within a period of 12 (Twelve) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken to the concerned educational institutions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes/No [M.S.N.,J.] [P.R.M.,J.]
Internet : Yes/No 09.09.2020
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. http://www.judis.nic.in 8/10 W.A.(MD)Nos.791, 794, 795 and 796 of 2020 To
1. The Director of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai.
2. The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3. The District Educational Officer, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 W.A.(MD)Nos.791, 794, 795 and 796 of 2020 M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.
AND P.RAJAMANICKAM,J.
pkn W.A.(MD)Nos.791, 794, 795 and 796 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.4487, 4498, 4499 and 4500 of 2020 09.09.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 10/10