Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.21 seconds)Manager, Corporate Educational Agency vs James Mathew on 11 July, 2017
12.4. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manager,
Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew & Others [2017 (15) SCC
595], reiterates that the management of a minority aided institution is entitled
to appoint a qualified candidate of its choice and is not bound to select the
senior-most member of the community. The Court cannot sit in appeal over
such managerial choices unless shown to be contrary to statutory provisions.
17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm )
W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016
12.5. In Educational and Cultural Trust & ors. -Vs- Union of India
[(2014) 8 SCC 1], it was held that the RTE, Act 2009 insofar it applies to
minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under Article 30(1) is ultravires the
Constitution, meaning thereby 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.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
Pramati Educational & Cultural ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 May, 2014
40205 and 12954 of 2016
6.3. The case of the fourth respondent is that she possesses the requisite
qualifications, namely B.Sc. (Zoology) and B.Ed., which render her eligible for
appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science). She was appointed to the
said sanctioned post with effect from 22.06.2015, pursuant to the retirement of
the incumbent on 01.06.2014. According to her, passing the Teacher Eligibility
Test (TET) was not mandatory for such appointment, in view of the ratio laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust
v. Union of India, [2014 (4) MLJ 486 (SC)]. It is further contended that the
competent authority has, without valid reasons, failed to approve the proposal
forwarded by the school for her appointment.
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998
“ 13. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this
Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not
permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr.
Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR
1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab
& Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758)
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 14 December, 2004
“ 13. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this
Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not
permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr.
Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR
1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab
& Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758)
Neetu ...Appellants vs State Of Punjab And Ors. ...Respondents on 8 January, 2007
“ 13. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this
Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not
permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr.
Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR
1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab
& Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758)
Ghulam Qadir vs Special Tribunal & Ors on 3 October, 2001
In Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal & Ors., (2002) 1
SCC 33, this Court considered a similar issue and observed as
under:–
“There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm )
W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016
an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for
habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule
is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the
legal right of the petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the
foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the
aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the
locus standi of a person to reach the Court has undergone a sea change
with the development of constitutional law in our country and the
constitutional Courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing
with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hyper-