The Correspondent v. The Director Of School Education

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :12.04.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA and W.M.P(MD)No.8203 &8206 of 2024 The Correspondent, St.Ignatius Convent Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai-627 002, Tirunelvli District.

.. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600006.

2. The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

3.The District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling 1/10

for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent District Educational officer in O.Mu.No. 5426/A1/2023 dated 18.01.2024 and quash the same and further direct the 3rd respondent, District Educational Officer to release forthwith annual increment admissible to Maria Rensi in the post of Tamil Pandit with effect from 07.06.2017, with all attendant benefits including the arrears of salary.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.F.Rooshi Maas for M/s.Isaac Chambers For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent, District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District, in O.Mu.No.5426/A1/2023 dated 18.01.202, quash the same and further direct the third respondent to release forthwith annual increment admissible to 2/10

Maria Rensi in the post of Tamil Pandit with effect from 07.06.2017, with all attendant benefits including the arrears of salary.with all attendant benefits including the arrears of salary thereon.

2. By consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. Heard Mr.M.F.Rooshi Maas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's School is a recognized aided minority educational institution. The school was initially established as primary school in the year 1921 and upgraded as middle school in the year 1923 and it was further upgraded as High School in the year 1929 and as Higher Secondary School in the 3/10

year 1978. When the school was upgraded as High School, as per the norms of the Government, it got bifurcated as primary and high school. Now the petitioner school is offering education from Standard VI to XII. One post of Tamil Pandit in the petitioner's school fell vacant on 01.06.2017 due to retirement of one Tmt.Virginia Roselin Mary. In that vacancy, the petitioner school appointed one Tmt.Maria Rensi as Tamil Pandit and she joined duty on the same day and till date she continues to work in the school. Her appointment was approved by the 3rd respondent with effect from 07.06.2017. Since, the annual increment admissible to her was not released, the school submitted a representation, dated 17.11.2020, to the 3rd respondent However, the 3rd respondent denied to release annual increments to her, vide impugned order, dated 16.06.2021, on the ground that she has not passed the Teachers Eligibility Test.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's Management is a minority institution. The issue involved in this writ petition is also 4/10

covered by the order of this Court in W.P(MD)No.1187 of 2020 dated 22.01.2020, wherein it has been held as follows: "7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's Management is a minority institution. The issue involved in this writ petition is also covered by the order of this Court in W.P(MD)Nos.19603 and 19659 of 2019 in the case of The Correspondent, Chiristhu Raja Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai - 627 002, Tirunelveli District v. the State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009 and others, wherein it has been held as follows:

"7.It is not in dispute that the petitioner's Management is a minority institution. Whether teachers appointed in minority institution must possess a certificate of pass in Teachers Eligibility Test or not, is no longer resintegra. The Division Bench of this Court in Secretary to Government v. S.Jeyalakshmi reported in 2016(5) CTC 639 in paragraphs 59 & 60 has held as follows:- "59.Insofar as Minority Institutions are concerned, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Minority Schools is that when Taml Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 received the assent of the President of India and it is still in force, it cannot be supplanted by an Executive Order, namely by G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 15.11.2011.

Further, the Apex Court has clearly held in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust that RTE Act, 2009 is not applicable to the Minority Institutions. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the right conferred under Article 30(1) of the Constitution cannot be abrogated. Consequently, G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 15.11.2011, which was issued pursuant to the directions of NCTC, cannot be made applicable to the Minority Institutions. 60.In the light of the above, we are of the view that the Government cannot insist upon the Minority Institutions, both Aided or Unaided, to abide by any Regulation framed under the provisions of the RTE Act. Therefore, we hold that G.O.Ms.No.

Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, is not applicable to the Minority Institutions. Similarly, G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 18.03.2015 issued by the Government of Puducherry, is also not applicable to the Minority Institutions."

The petitioner institution appointed two persons on 15.09.2010 and 01.02.2011 prior to the date of issuance of Government Order. 8.A reading of above two paragraphs makes it clear that the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011, is not applicable to the Minority Institutions.

9.In view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision cited supra, both the writ petitions are allowed".

8. Following the same, this Court is inclined to pass the following order: The impugned order of the 3rd respondent dated 19.12.2018, insofar as S.Sherine Stella is concerned, is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent is directed to pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner school, dated 30.11.2018, seeking to release the annual increment of S.Sherine Stella, in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Secretary to Government v. S.Jeyalakshmi reported in 2016(5) CTC 639, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9.The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."

6. In the light of the decision cited supra, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the 3rd respondent in O.Mu.No. 5426/A1/2023 dated 18.01.2024 is quashed. The matter is remanded 6/10

back to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent is directed to pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner school, dated 17.11.2020, seeking to release the annual increment of Maria Rensi in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Secretary to Government v. S.Jeyalakshmi reported in 2016(5) CTC 639, within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

12.04.2024 NCC :yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no PJL To

1. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600006.

2. The Chief Educational Officer, 7/10

Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

3.The District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

8/10

9/10

R.N.MANJULA, J.

PJL W.P.(MD)No.9016 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.8203 &8206 of 2024 12.04.2024 10/10