AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By consent, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal as the issue involved and to be adjudicated is one and the same.
Mr.K.Dhananjayan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.
The petitioner in WP.No.1129/2017 would aver that the 4th respondent / School is an Anglo-Indian School and it is receiving grant-in-aid from
the Government called as ""Deficit Grant"" and it was established and administered by the Catholic Religious Congregation of the ""Selesians of Don
Bosco"" and it is also a registered Society bearing Regn.S.No.20 of 1945-1946 in the name and style of ""The South India Selesian Society"" and it
is administering very many number of educational institutions for the welfare of Catholic Christian Minority Community and it is governed and
protected by Article 30[1] of the Constitution of India and it is also declared as a Minority Educational institution pursuant to the orders passed by
this Court and it was acted upon by the Government. The petitioner would further aver that she was appointed as a B.T. Assistant [Tamil] in the
4th respondent / School with effect from 17.06.2013 FN in the vacancy arising out of the retirement of one Mary Jesintha as Secondary Grade
Teacher, whose appointment has been approved by the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings dated 06.02.2013. The 4 th respondent / School
submitted a proposal to the 3rd respondent for approval of the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 17.06.2013, on 22.06.2016 and
however, the 3rd respondent, vide impugned proceedings dated 15.07.2016, has not considered the approval on the ground of non-passing of the
Teacher Eligibility Test [TET] by the petitioner and that as and when orders are received from the Government, the proposal for approval will be
considered and challenging the legality of the same, the petitioner came forward to file the present writ petition in WP.No.1129/2017.
The petitioner in WP.No.1130/2017 would aver that the 4th respondent / School is an Anglo-Indian School and it is receiving grant-in-aid from
the Government called as ""Deficit Grant"" and it was established and administered by the Catholic Religious Congregation of the ""Selesians of Don
Bosco"" and it is also a registered Society bearing Regn.S.No.20 of 1945-1946 in the name and style of ""The South India Selesian Society"" and it
is administering very many number of educational institutions for the welfare of Catholic Christian Minority Community and it is governed and
protected by Article 30[1] of the Constitution of India and it is also declared as a Minority Educational institution pursuant to the orders passed by
this Court and it was acted upon by the Government. The petitioner would further aver that she was appointed as a B.T. Assistant [Science] in the
4 th respondent / School with effect from 16.07.2012 FN in the vacancy arising out of the promotion of one Mrs.S.Bernice Priscilla and whose
appointment has been endorsed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 26.09.2012. The 4 th respondent / School submitted a proposal to
the 3rd respondent for approval of the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 16.07.2012, on 09.10.2012 and however, the 3 rd
respondent, vide impugned proceedings dated 15.07.2016, has not considered the approval on the ground of non-passing of the Teacher Eligibility
Test [TET] by the petitioner and that as and when orders are received from the Government, the proposal for approval will be considered and
challenging the legality of the same, the petitioner came forward to file the present writ petition in WP.No.1130/2017.
The petitioner in WP.No.1131/2017 would aver that the 4th respondent / School is an Anglo-Indian School and it is receiving grant-in-aid from
the Government called as ""Deficit Grant"" and it was established and administered by the Catholic Religious Congregation of the ""Selesians of Don
Bosco"" and it is also a registered Society bearing Regn.S.No.20 of 1945-1946 in the name and style of ""The South India Selesian Society"" and it
is administering very many number of educational institutions for the welfare of Catholic Christian Minority Community and it is governed and
protected by Article 30[1] of the Constitution of India and it is also declared as a Minority Educational institution pursuant to the orders passed by
this Court and it was acted upon by the Government. The petitioner would further aver that she was appointed as a B.T. Assistant [English] in the
4 th respondent / School with effect from 01.06.2012 FN in the vacancy arising out of the demise of one Mrs.M.Uma Maheswari as B.T.
Assistant [Science] and the said post was converted into B.T.Assistant [English] to meet out the requirements of the 4th respondent / School as
per G.O.Ms.Nos.100 and 144, School Education Department, dated 27.06.2003 and 04.07.2008 respectively. The 4th respondent / School
submitted a proposal to the 3rd respondent for approval of the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.2012, on 07.08.2012 and
however, the 3 rd respondent, vide impugned proceedings dated 15.07.2016, has not considered the approval on the ground of non-passing of
the Teacher Eligibility Test [TET] by the petitioner and that as and when orders are received from the Government, the proposal for approval will
be considered and challenging the legality of the same, the petitioner came forward to file the present writ petition in WP.No.1131/2017.
The petitioner in WP.No.1132/2017 would aver that the 4th respondent / School is an Anglo-Indian School and it is receiving grant-in-aid from
the Government called as ""Deficit Grant"" and it was established and administered by the Catholic Religious Congregation of the ""Selesians of Don
Bosco"" and it is also a registered Society bearing Regn.S.No.20 of 1945-1946 in the name and style of ""The South India Selesian Society"" and it
is administering very many number of educational institutions for the welfare of Catholic Christian Minority Community and it is governed and
protected by Article 30[1] of the Constitution of India and it is also declared as a Minority Educational institution pursuant to the orders passed by
this Court and it was acted upon by the Government. The petitioner would further aver that she was appointed as a B.T. Assistant [Maths] in the
4th respondent / School with effect from 21.06.2013 FN in the vacancy arising out of the voluntary retirement of one Mrs.Hentrita Maria Selvam
and the said voluntary retirement was also countersigned by the 3 rd respondent ion 06.08.2013 and the above said post is a regular sanctioned
post, covered by the Grant-in-Aid Scheme. The 4 th respondent / School submitted a proposal to the 3rd respondent for approval of the
appointment of the petitioner with effect from 21.06.2013, on 22.06.2016 and however, the 3rd respondent, vide impugned proceedings dated
15.07.2016, has not considered the approval on the ground of non-passing of the Teacher Eligibility Test [TET] by the petitioner and that as and
when orders are received from the Government, the proposal for approval will be considered and challenging the legality of the same, the petitioner
came forward to file the present writ petition in WP.No.1132/2017.
Dr.Fr.Xavier Arul Raj, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms.A.Arul Mary, learned counsel on record, has invited the attention of this Court
to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court reported in [2016] 7 MLJ 155 [Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil
Nadu, Education Department, Chennai-9 and others Vs. S.Jeyalakshmi and others] , and would submit that the Division Bench has taken into
consideration very many decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, more particularly, the judgment reported in 2014 [8] SCC 1
[Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust V. Union of India] , and held that the Government cannot insist upon the Minority Institution, both aided or
un-aided, to abide by any regulation framed under the provisions of the Right to Education Act, and as such, G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education
[C2] Department dated 15.11.2011, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, is not applicable to the Minority Institutions. So also the
Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 18.03.2015 issued by the Government of Puducherry and in the light of the said judgment, the
impugned orders are per se unsustainable. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the above cited judgment
has also taken note of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court [ in which I was one of the party to the said
judgment ] in WA [MD] No.1019/2013 etc., batch and a common judgment was passed on 24.11.2016, wherein this Court has set aside the
orders passed by the learned Single Judge, holding that the Government cannot insist, both aided or un-aided, to abide any regulation framed
under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and as such, G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education [C2]
Department, dated 15.11.2011 is not applicable to the Minority Institution and therefore, prays for quashment of the impugned orders with
appropriate directions.
Per contra, Mr.K.Dhananjayan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would vehemently contend that legal
advise is being sought for to challenge the decision rendered in [2016] 7 MLJ 155 [cited supra] and till such decision is taken, the impugned orders
may not be quashed.
This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the judgment reported in [2016] 7 MLJ 155 [cited supra], is squarely applicable to the facts of these
cases. It is not in serious dispute that the 4th respondent / School is an Aided Minority Institution and as such, the above cited Government Orders
will not be applicable. Though it is vehemently contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that legal advise is being sought to challenge
the above cited decision, the said decision is still awaited and it cannot be a ground to dismiss these writ petitions.
In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders of the 1st respondent dated 15.11.2011 and the consequential
proceedings of the 3 rd respondent dated 15.07.2016, are hereby set aside and the 3 rd respondent is directed to consider the
proposals/approvals submitted by the 4 th respondent / School in respect of the petitioners afresh, on merits and in accordance with law and pass
orders as expeditiously as possible and not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision
taken, to the petitioners as well as to the 4th respondent / School.
The 4 th respondent / School shall also take note of the observations made in Paragraph 62 of the above cited decision, more particularly, the
interest and welfare of the students studying in the said institution and may also consider conducting refresher courses in a periodical intervals and
also some interactive sessions to all the Teachers during annual vacation or any other holidays, in order to ensure and improve the quality of
teaching. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.