Celine Borgia. S v. The Chief Educational Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.09.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.9737 & 12777 of 2021 S.Celine Borgia ... Petitioner -vs1.The Chief Educational Officer Sivagangai, Sivagangai District 2.The District Educational Officer Devakottai, Sivagangai District 3.The Correspondent St.Mary's Girls Higher Secondary School Devakottai-630 302 Sivagangai District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent District Educational Officer in A.Thi.Mu.No.355/A2/2021, dated ....01.2021, quash the same and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to sanction forthwith the annual increments and other allowances towards the salary of petitioner as BT Assistant Tamil in the third respondent School from the date of her appointment i.e.07.06.2017.

For Petitioner :

Ms.Amala.A.

For Respondents :

Mr.S.Shanmugavel Government Counsel for R1 & R2

O R D E R

The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated ...01.2021, passed by the second respondent and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to sanction forthwith the annual increments and other allowances towards the salary of the petitioner as BT Assistant (Tamil) in the third respondent School from the date of her appointment i.e.07.06.2017.

1/3

2. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as B.T.Assistant (Tamil) on 07.06.2017 in the third respondent School, which is a Minority Institution. Though the second respondent, vide proceedings dated 13.02.2019, accorded approval to the petitioner's appointment and disbursed the grant-in-aid towards her salary, did not sanction the annual increments, leave salary and other benefits. Therefore, the third respondent School, on 18.01.2021, submitted a proposal to the second respondent requesting annual increment and other benefits. However, the second respondent, by the impugned order dated ....01.2021, returned the said proposal on the ground that the petitioner has not completed the Teacher Eligibility Test. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in a similar circumstances, in W.P.(MD) No.16428 of 2018 etc., batch, vide order dated 26.07.2018, this Court allowed the writ petitions and the writ appeals filed as against the said order, have also been dismissed, by Judgment dated 17.11.2019. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for setting aside the impugned order passed by the second respondent.

4. The learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that as against the Judgment, dated 17.11.2019 in W.A.(MD) No.1413 of 2019, no further appeal has been preferred by the respondents.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and carefully perused the materials available on record.

6. On perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that this Court, in a similar circumstances, by order dated 26.07.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.16428 of 2018 etc., batch, directed the respondents to award annual increment to the teachers, like the petitioner, who are working in Minority Institutions, without passing Teacher Eligibility Test. Further, both sides admitted that the aforesaid issue is now under reference before the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Aswini vs. Thenappan. Hence, this Court is of the view that subject to the outcome of the said case, the petitioner's case can be considered.

7. Accordingly, this Court passes the following orders: (i) The third respondent School shall resubmit the proposal to the second respondent seeking sanction of annual increment and other benefits payable to the petitioner, from the date of her appointment i.e.07.06.2017, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

(ii) On receiving such resubmission of proposal by 2/3

the third respondent School, the second respondent, without insisting upon the pass in Teacher Eligibility Test, shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, if the petitioner is otherwise found to be eligible, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.

8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) krk Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

To:

1.The Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2.The District Educational Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-30468[F] dated 28/09/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.A.AMALA, Advocate ( SR-30290[F] dated 27/09/2021 ) and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.9737 & 12777 of 2021 27.09.2021 RK (05.10.2021) 3P 5C 3/3