Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
B.Kalaiselvi vs The State Tamil Nadu on 20 March, 2017 cites

State Of Tamil Nadu vs Sbm High School on 31 March, 2014

6 It is a well settled legal position that for filling up a permanent vacancy already approved by the school authorities, no prior permission is required. Moreover, Section 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, also is made inapplicable to the minority educational institutions as held by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2013 in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. SBM High School in W.A. No.908 of 2013. This was not taken note of by the third respondent. When it is the clear case of the fifth respondent school, which is a minority educational institution controlled by the Diocese of Vellore, that only in the permanent vacancy which arose on 20.03.2010 owing to the voluntary retirement of one Mohan who worked as Junior Assistant, the petitioner was appointed, the third respondent should not keep the proposal submitted by the fifth respondent school pending on the ground that no prior approval was obtained for appointing the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant. Further, though there was no prior approval obtained by the fifth respondent before appointing the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant, the records show that when one Mohan who was serving as Junior Assistant in the fifth respondent school opted to retire voluntarily with effect from 20.03.2010, a vacancy had arisen and to fill up the said vacancy, the fifth respondent school, being a minority educational institution, controlled by the Diocese of Vellore, selected and appointed the petitioner as Junior Assistant on 31.08.2010 as against the sanctioned permanent vacancy as per the recommendations of the Education Board and approval granted by the Executive Committee vide order dated 28.09.2010. Ergo, the proposal made by the fifth respondent school, which is a minority educational institution, needs to be necessarily approved by the third respondent.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1