The Chief Educational Officer v. A Punitha Ruby
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE and C.M.P.(MD).No.16872 of 2024 1.The Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The District Educational Officer, (Primary Education), Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
... Appellants/1st and 2nd Respondents Vs.
1.A.Punitha Ruby, Secondary Grade Teacher, CSI Primary School, Paamban, Ramanathapuram District.
... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2.CSI Primary School, Represented by its Correspondent, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
... 2nd Respondent/3rd Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 10.07.2024 passed in W.P.(MD).No.15312 of 2024.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For R-1 : M/s.H.Jasima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.) The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.15312 of 2024 dated 10.07.2024.
2. On the ground that there are surplus teachers in the corporate management of the second respondent's school, their request for approval of appointment has been rejected, which order was put to challenge before the learned Single Judge.
3. By placing reliance on the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of cases in the case of the Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9 Vs. Iruthaya Amali [W.A.(MD).No.76 of 2019 etc., batch dated
31.03.2021], the learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition and directed the appellants to consider the approval of appointment of the concerned teacher as Secondary Grade Teacher. The order of the Writ Court is assailed in this intra-court appeal.
4. The issue as to whether the educational authorities are empowered to reject the approval of appointment of a teacher in a minority school on the ground that there are surplus teachers in the other schools in the corporate management, has already been dealt with by this Court in several decisions including the decision in Iruthaya Amali's case. One such decision was by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District and another Vs. A.X.Mino and another passed in W.A. (MD).No.1855 of 2024 dated 16.10.2024. By placing reliance upon the decision in Iruthaya Amali's case, the learned Single Judge had held that the educational authorities cannot reject the application seeking for approval of appointments on this ground. In this background, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
5. The other ground on which approval of appointment of the Teacher in the second respondent school was rejected is that the Teacher does not possess
a pass in the Teacher's Eligibility Test (TET). This Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been consistently holding that a pass in the Teacher's Eligibility Test is not a mandatory pre-requirement for appointment of a Teacher in a minority school and that the educational authorities have no authority to reject a proposal for approval of such appointment made. The orders of the Division Benches of this Court in W.A.No.179 of 2024, dated 22.01.2024 [The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of School Education and others vs. T.Selvarani and another] and in W.A.(MD)No.670 of 2024, dated 12.04.2024 [The District Educational Officer, Sivagangai and another vs. Y.Joseph Mercy Rani and another], are two such orders, wherein, this ratio has been upheld.
6. When coordinate Benches have already taken such a view, we see no justification on the part of the authorities in having rejected the proposal of the minority schools seeking for approval of the appointments made. Hence, we do not find any merits in the Writ Appeal.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. (M.S.R.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 26.11.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm
M.S.RAMESH,J.
and A.D.MARIA CLETE,J.
Lm 26.11.2024