Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 620 (1.89 seconds)
Documents citing Pramati Educational & Cultural ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 May, 2014

Mar Gregorios Orthodox Syrian Church, ... vs State Of Gujarat on 30 July, 2018

(v) The moment an educational institution run by such religious minority Trust/ Society gets the No Objection Certificate/ status of a minority educational institution, it shall be exempted from the purview of the RTE Act, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (Registered) And Others v. Union of India And Page 55 of 59 C/WPPIL/105/2018 CAV JUDGMENT Others (supra).
Gujarat High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - M R Shah - Full Document

Dr.M.Hemalatha vs / on 2 May, 2017

(d)The legal bar created for appropriation of seats in Non-Governmental educational institutions by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.M.A.Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 as well as P.A.Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 537 stands removed by inclusion of Clause 5 in Article 15 of Constitution by Ninety-Third Constitution Amendment Act, 2005 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and Others v. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1.
Madras High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document

M.D. Aided Primary School vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 24 March, 2025

“71.1. A perusal of the orders impugned in the writ petitions leading to these writ appeals would indicate that the fact that the teachers, in respect of whom approval of appointment was sought for by the school, did not possess TET pass eligibility was not a ground for refusal for grant of appointment approval, nor was it an issued raised before the Learned Single Judge at the time of disposal of the writ petitions. Only in the writ appeals, the State Government has raised an additional ground that the teachers whose appointment approval was sought for, did not possess TET. Notwithstanding the same, it is hereby clarified that by virtue of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust & Ors. v. Union of India, [(2014) 8 SCC 1], wherein it was held that the RTE Act, 2009 insofar as it applies to minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under Article 30(1) is ultravires the Constitution, meaning thereby that the 2009 Act will not apply to minority schools, the eligibility of TET pass as required for appointment of teachers in non-minority schools, will not apply to minority schools. In other words, the approval of appointment of teachers in minority schools, both aided and unaided, 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 03:39:22 pm ) W.P.No.29408 of 2023 cannot be refused or rejected on the ground that they do not possess a pass in TET. Further this specific issue is also pending consideration before the Supreme Court and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust, cited supra, holds the field as on today. For these reasons, the order of the Learned Judge in the writ petitions is affirmed and the above four writ appeals are dismissed.”
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

The Secretary To Government vs S.Jeyalakshmi

5. The main contention of Dr.Fr.A.Xavier Arulraj, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners is that any order emanated from the RTE Act, 2009 is not applicable to the minority Schools, both aided and unaided, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India [(2014) 8 SCC 1] and therefore, G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011 prescribing the minimum qualification of TET for appointment to the post of Teachers, which was passed pursuant to the RTE Act, 2009 and the notification issued by the NCTE, will not apply to the minority Schools.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - H G Ramesh - Full Document

M.D. Aided Primary School vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 24 March, 2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 03:39:22 pm ) W.P.No.29414 of 2023 “71.1. A perusal of the orders impugned in the writ petitions leading to these writ appeals would indicate that the fact that the teachers, in respect of whom approval of appointment was sought for by the school, did not possess TET pass eligibility was not a ground for refusal for grant of appointment approval, nor was it an issued raised before the Learned Single Judge at the time of disposal of the writ petitions. Only in the writ appeals, the State Government has raised an additional ground that the teachers whose appointment approval was sought for, did not possess TET. Notwithstanding the same, it is hereby clarified that by virtue of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust & Ors. v. Union of India, [(2014) 8 SCC 1], wherein it was held that the RTE Act, 2009 insofar as it applies to minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under Article 30(1) is ultravires the Constitution, meaning thereby that the 2009 Act will not apply to minority schools, the eligibility of TET pass as required for appointment of teachers in non-minority schools, will not apply to minority schools. In other words, the approval of appointment of teachers in minority schools, both aided and unaided, cannot be refused or rejected on the ground that they do not possess a pass in TET. Further this specific issue is also pending consideration before the Supreme Court and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pramati 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 03:39:22 pm ) W.P.No.29414 of 2023 Educational and Cultural Trust, cited supra, holds the field as on today. For these reasons, the order of the Learned Judge in the writ petitions is affirmed and the above four writ appeals are dismissed.”
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

A.Firdose Begum vs The Secretary To Government on 22 September, 2016

5. The main contention of Dr.Fr.A.Xavier Arulraj, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners is that any order emanated from the RTE Act, 2009 is not applicable to the minority Schools, both aided and unaided, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India [(2014) 8 SCC 1] and therefore, G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011 prescribing the minimum qualification of TET for appointment to the post of Teachers, which was passed pursuant to the RTE Act, 2009 and the notification issued by the NCTE, will not apply to the minority Schools.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

& vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu

5. The main contention of Dr.Fr.A.Xavier Arulraj, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners is that any order emanated from the RTE Act, 2009 is not applicable to the minority Schools, both aided and unaided, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India [(2014) 8 SCC 1] and therefore, G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011 prescribing the minimum qualification of TET for appointment to the post of Teachers, which was passed pursuant to the RTE Act, 2009 and the notification issued by the NCTE, will not apply to the minority Schools.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - H G Ramesh - Full Document

K.Bashiri ..Review vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 June, 2025

18. Be that as it may, when the minority institutions approached the Court only for 25% admission for downtrodden children, the Learned Senior Page No.39/51 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:51:51 pm ) REV. APLC.(MD) No.67 of 2025 Counsels also address on the 25% issue, the Courts also considered only 25% issue, then by relying on the single sentence in Pramati’s case wherein it is held that “the 2009 Act insofar it is made applicable to minority schools the rights of minorities under Article 30 is affected”, is it right to argue that qualification cannot be prescribed to teachers working in minority institutions, this Court is of the considered opinion that such an argument cannot be accepted. Since in entire Pramati's case, the issue of prescription of qualification under Section 23 of RTE Act, 2009 was not raised at all, then the argument that in Pramati’s case it is held 2009 act itself is not applicable to minority institutions is erroneous argument. The paragraph 55 and 56 of Pramati’s case ought to be read along with the reference raised in Pramati’s case. The single sentence stated above cannot taken and come to conclusion. The entire judgment ought to be taken. Especially the reference ought to be taken into account. When the issue “whether the prescription of qualification under Section 23 of RTE Act, 2009 would take away the right of minority institutions guaranteed under Article 30” was not raised, whether it is right to hold that Pramati’s case had held TET is not applicable to minority. This Court is of the considered opinion that the answer is “No”. The judgment would become precedent Page No.40/51 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:51:51 pm ) REV. APLC.(MD) No.67 of 2025 only when the issue is raised, discussed, considered and answered. If the issue is not raised, the issue is not discussed, the issue is not considered and not rendered any finding at all, the judgment is absolutely silent on this issue, then it has to construe that the judgment is not precedent regarding “the issue of TET” based on the rule of 'sub-silentio'.
Madras High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next