D.Arul Singh Gnana Selvaraj v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.10.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.A(MD)No.1248 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)No.8739 of 2017 D.Arul Singh Gnana Selvaraj, BT Assistant in Science, A.P.C Veerabahu High School, Pudupatti - 628 851, Thoothukudi District.

...Petitioner/Appellant

.vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

3. The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

4. The District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

5. The Secretary, APC Veerabhahu High School, Pudhupatti, Thoothukudi District.

6. The Headmaster, A.P.C. Veerabahu High School, Pudhupatti - 628 851, Thoothukudi District. ...Respondents/Respondents

PRAYER:Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 11.09.2017 passed in W.P(MD)No.17117 of 2017 on the file of this Court. Prayer in WP(MD). 17117/ 2017 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from relieving the petitioner from his employment as BT Assistant (Science ) in A.P.C. Veerabahu Shigh School, Pudhupatti.

For Appellant : Mr.Cibi Chakkraborathy for M/s.Isaac Chambers For R-1 to R-4 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader For R-5 & R-6 : Mr.S.Rajasekar for Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL.,J.] Heard both sides.

2. The Appellant/Petitioner has preferred the present intraCourt Appeal as against the order dated 11.09.2017 in W.P(MD) No.17117 of 2017 passed by the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition.

3.Earlier, the Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order on 11.09.2017 in W.P(MD)No.17117 of 2017 at Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 had observed the following and resultantly dismissed the Writ Petition without costs.

"6. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that when the TET examination was held in the month of April 2017, the petitioner was not able to qualify. It is further stated that the petitioner being a married man is unable to prepare for the examination and in any event, the Government has given time till 31.03.2017. Therefore, one more chance may be given to the petitioner to continue in service, he pleaded.

7. I do not agree with this prayer. It is true that the Central Government has passed a Bill granting time to pass TET until 31.03.2019, whereas, the petitioner was specifically granted time till 31.03.2015 at the first exam to be held after 31.03.2015. The petitioner failed in that exam also. Therefore, I am not able to

go back from my own order. Paragraph No.5 of the order as mentioned above clearly shows that the petitioner was given enough time. In spite of it, the petitioner has not qualified. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition.

4. Assailing the validity, correctness and legality of the impugned order dated 11.09.2017 passed in W.P(MD)No.17117 of 2017, the Appellant/Petitioner has filed the present Writ Appeal primarily contending that the Learned Single Judge should have considered that a proviso clause was inserted to Section 23(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to take a plea that the Learned Single Judge should have seen Section 23(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has provided relaxation to the candidates to pass TET within a period of five years ie., on or before 31.03.2015.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant further proceeds to point out that by means of Amendment Act, 2017, viz., 'the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017 (w.e.f. 01.04.2015), a proviso clause was inserted under Section 23(2) of the Act, holding that the every Teacher appointed or in position as on 31.03.2015, who does not possess minimum qualification, as laid down under sub-Section (1) of Section 23, shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period or four years from the date of commencement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017.

7. In effect, the categorical plea of the Appellant/Petitioner is that a Teacher like him, who were in service as on 31.03.2015 can continue in employment and possess the TET on or before 31.03.2019.

8. It is to be noted that when the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017, provides time to the candidates, who were in service as on 31.03.2015 to pass TET on or before 31.03.2019, the act of the School in directing the Appellant not to come to School and not allotting any work are not per se valid in the eye of Law.

9. On a careful consideration of the contentions advanced on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner and also this Court on going through the amendment to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017(Act 24 of 2017) (which received the assent of the Honourable President of India on 09.08.2017), is of the considered view that the Appellant/Petitioner shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of four years from the date of commencement of the

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017 (Act 24 of 2017). As such, the deadline date is on or before 31.03.2019.

10. Viewed in that perspective, this Court comes to an irresistible conclusion that the view taken by the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition(MD)No.17117 of 2017, vide order dated 11.09.2017, is not tenable in the eye of Law.

11. Resultantly, this Court interferes with the said order of dismissal of the Writ Petition(MD)No.17117 of 2017, dated 11.09.2017 and sets aside the same, in furtherance of the substantial cause of justice. Consequently, the Writ Appeal succeeds.

12. In fine, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of the Learned single Judge dated 11.09.2017 passed in Writ Petition(MD) No.17117 of 2017, is set aside for the reasons assigned by this Court in this Writ Appeal. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar() /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

3. The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

4. The District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

+1cc to M/S.ISAAC CHAMBERS, Advocate SR.No.83377. JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A(MD)No.1248 of 2017 23.10.2017 pm SDS/SV:MMS/SAR 2/26.10.2017/4P/6C