Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing Dr.S. Arulmani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 10 March, 2006

Rev.Dr.Arul Arasu Israel vs The Governing Council Of The on 28 July, 2006

33. It is by referring to G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 24.03.1999 and the said qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission, this Court in the judgment rendered in Dr.S.Arulmani Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, and Commissioner, Department of Higher Education, Chennai and others reported in 2006 W L.R 390 has held that there is no contradiction between the G.O.Ms.No.111 passed by the State Government by virtue of the powers conferred under Article 162 Constitution of India and the stipulations of the University Grants Commission regarding the qualification of Principals prescribed by virtue of the powers under Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act and thus held that the G.O.Ms.No.111 is applicable. This Court in categorical terms has held in Para 40 as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

T.Gladis Bagavathi Bai vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 January, 2021

4. The proceedings of the District Elementary Education Officer, Kancheepuram dated 14.12.2009 would make it very clear that the petitioner has voluntarily left the service. The petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.14525 of 2011 (S.Arulmani vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and 3 others), wherein, a teacher was transferred from one aided school to another aided school and pay protection was not granted to the teacher and the Court held that pay protection shall have to be granted. The Court also observed in that case that the teachers working in an aided school was in a better position than the teachers, who are working in the private management. Even though in the present case, the petitioner was employed in the aided school, she got herself relieved on his own volition, participated in the selection process afresh and thereafter appointed as teacher. I would have accepted the contention of the petitioner, if there was a transfer and entire past services have been ignored and pay protection was not granted. It is not so in the present case on hand.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

Dr.K.Ganesan vs University Grants Commission on 12 July, 2010

6.In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for relied upon the judgments reported in 2003 Writ L.R. 615, in the case of Dr.T.Venkatraman and the Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-6 and 3 others, (2008)2 MLJ 593, in the case of Secretary, Kamaraj College, Thoothukudi vs. D.S.Arulmani, Reader and Head of Department of Tamil, Kamaraj College, Thoothukudi and others and 2006 Writ L.R. 390, in the case of Dr.S.Arulmani vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, by its Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai and 5 others.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - R S Ramanathan - Full Document
1