Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs J.Sugirtha Selvi ... 1St on 14 March, 2016
Bench: S.Manikumar, C.T.Selvam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.03.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
W.A.(MD) No.382 of 2016
Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.382, 383, 345, 365 to 367, 257, 157, 189 to 193, 201,
216 to 218, 222, 229 to 231 and 259 of 2016
and C.M.P.(MD) Nos.2534, 2539, 2124, 2360, 2364, 2367, 1345, 751, 940 to 944,
975, 1026 to 1028, 1037, 1119, 1120, 1122, 1353 of 2016
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
School Education (C2) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai.
3.The District Educational Officer,
O/o. District Educational Office,
Dindigul District.
4.The Assistant Educational Officer,
O/o. District Educational Office,
Dindigul District. ... Appellants/Respondents 1
to 4
Vs.
1.J.Sugirtha Selvi ... 1st Respondent/Writ
Petitioner
2.The Correspondent,
C.S.I. High School,
Battalagundu,
Dindigul District. ... 2nd Respondent/5th
Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the order
dated 21.01.2016 passed in W.M.P.(MD) No.1106 of 2016 in W.P.(MD) No.1327 of
2016 on the file of this Hon'ble Court.
!For Appellants : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Special Government Pleader
^For 1st Respondent : Mr.Mahaboob Athiff
For Mr.V.Balasubramanian
:C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) In all the present appeals, the common challenge made is to the orders passed by the writ Court, directing the appellants to grant temporary approval, and to pay the salary to the 1st respondent/writ petitioners, from the date of appointment, till the date of disposal of the writ petitions. In some cases, the impugned orders are to the effect to pay salary.
2.Issue involved in all these writ appeals are similar. Learned counsel appearing for all parties in the appeals, have consented that, they are agreeable that an order passed in W.A.(MD) No.220/2016 dated 05.02.2016, be passed in the present appeals also, details of which are given below. Thus by consent, all the present appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.
3.On an earlier occasion, a similar Writ Appeal (MD) No.220 of 2016 filed by the State has been considered and disposed of on 05.02.2016 by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us is a party (SMKJ).
4.Mr.Mahaboob Athiff, representing Mr.V.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for 1st respondents/Writ Petitioners in W.A.(MD) Nos.382 and 345 of 2016, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the 1st respondents/Writ Petitioners in W.A.(MD) Nos.383, 365 and 259 of 2016, Mr.F.Deepak, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/Writ Petitioner in W.A.(MD) No.367 of 2016, Fr.A.Xavier Arulraj, learned counsel for the 1st respondents/writ petitioners in W.A.(MD) Nos.366, 257, 157, 189 to 193, 201, 222, 229 to 231 of 2016, Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondents/Writ Petitioners in W.A.(MD) Nos.216 to 218 of 2016 and Mr.P.Antony Dorathy, learned counsel for 2nd respondent/5th respondent have consented that they have no objection for an order, similar to the one in W.A.(MD) No.220/16 dated 05.02.2016, be passed in the present appeals filed by the State. Their submission is placed on record.
5.In as much the learned counsel for the 1st respondents/writ petitioners in each of the Writ Appeals have consented for a similar order as made in W.A.(MD) No.220 of 2016 dated 05.02.2016, be passed, this Court deem it fit to extract the same and dispose of the Writ Appeals on the same lines:
?4.In a similar writ appeal filed by the State in the Principal Bench, a Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order in W.A.No.1299 of 2015, dated 14.09.2015.
'4.Be that as it may, the issue as to whether the provisions of the Act, will be applicable to a minority institution, is pending consideration in Aswinithanappan Vs. Director of Education and another ? (2014) 8 SCC 272.
5.In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case as to whether a teacher appointed in a minority school is required to have TET qualification, as the same is the subject matter of the Writ petition, we are of the considered view that interest justice would sub-serve, if the appointment of the first respondent is protected, without giving any direction to the State Government to grant temporary approval.
6.Mr.D.Krishnakumar, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) appearing for the appellants fairly submits that the first respondent shall not be terminated during the pendency of the said writ petition being W.P.No.14072 of 2015.
7.Accordingly, we direct that the first respondent shall be given her salary in the course of her employment and no steps to remove her from service shall be taken till the disposal of the writ petition. However, it is made clear that this order is subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petition. It is further made clear that the first respondent shall not claim any equity on account of this order, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, therein.
8.This intra-Court appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is Closed. ?
6.By consent, the present Writ Appeals are disposed of on the same lines as ordered in W.A.(MD) No.220 of 2016 dated 05.02.2016. Having consented, the appellants are directed to comply with the orders. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
To
1.The Secretary, School Education (C2) Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai.
3.The District Educational Officer, O/o. District Educational Office, Dindigul District.
4.The Assistant Educational Officer, O/o. District Educational Office, Dindigul District..