S. Halen Raja Soundari vs District Elementary Educational Officer, Aandipatti, Theni District

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Mad) 859

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.S. Ramesh, J.
S. Halen Raja Soundari – Petitioner
Versus
The District Elementary Educational Officer, Aandipatti, Theni District & Others – Respondents
W.P.(MD)Nos.6340, 7642, 9525 to 9528, 12889, 15014, 15015, 15515, 16914, 21430, 24604, 24816 of 2018, 6477, 6882, 7819 to 7821, 9122, 11925, 14502, 14504, 14505, 17221, 17483, 18398, 18866, 18867, 18983, 21779, 24920, 25420, 25448, 27062, 27343 of 2019, 878, 983, 5196, 8276, 10989, 11973, 13923, 14352, 14453, 15104, 15684, 15949, 17057, 18063, 18212, 18599, 19696 of 2020, 930, 1336, 2086, 2092, 2098, 4329, 5369, 5921, 6409, 7198, 10214, 11970, 12897, 12898, 13127, 13774, 13792, 14851 of 2022
Decided On : 02-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:T. Antony Arul Raj, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Baskaran, Addl. Advocate General –VI Assisted by V. Nirmal Kumar, Govt. Advocate

Headnote:(A) Article 30 of the Constitution of India - Rights of minority educational institutions - The court held that minority institutions have the right to appoint teachers without prior government approval, rejecting baseless objections from educational authorities. Case law supporting this includes Government of Tamil Nadu v. J.Remila and Immaculate Arputha Mary Usha. (Paras 1, 2, 4.1.1)

(B) Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) - Requirement of TET is not mandatory for minority institutions, as per precedent. (Paras 4.2, 4.2.1)

(C) Surplus teachers in nearby schools do not impede the approval of new appointments by minority institutions. (Para 4.3.1)

(D) Conversion of sanctioned posts for appropriate subjects is a valid right of minority institutions. (Paras 4.4-4.4.1) (E) Upgradation of posts upon retirement is permissible without requiring government approval. (Paras 4.5, 4.5.1) (F) Each writ petition was allowed with directions for the prompt approval of appointments. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners are teachers in minority and non-minority institutions whose appointment proposals were denied by educational authorities based on unfounded grounds.

Findings of Court:
Overturned rejections, affirming institutions' autonomy in hiring.

Issues: Whether prior approval is necessary for teacher appointments in minority institutions and the validity of TET and surplus teacher objections.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that minority institutions possess constitutional rights to hire teachers without government interference.

Result: Writs allowed, requiring immediate approval of appointments.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The court affirmed that minority educational institutions have constitutional rights under Article 30 of the Constitution of India to appoint teachers without requiring prior government approval (!) (!) .
The requirement of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification is not mandatory for teachers in minority institutions, and such institutions are not legally bound to insist on TET qualification for appointment (!) (!) .
Objections related to surplus teachers in nearby or district schools, or redeployment of surplus teachers, do not constitute valid grounds for rejecting appointment proposals for minority institutions. The staff strength should be determined per individual school, not collectively for a management or district (!) (!) (!) .
Minority institutions have the right to convert sanctioned posts for appropriate subjects and to upgrade posts upon retirement without needing prior approval from authorities (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The courts have consistently held that the rejection of appointment proposals based on the absence of prior permission, TET qualification, surplus teachers, or post conversion/upgradation is not sustainable if such objections have already been addressed or rejected in prior decisions.
The court directed authorities to approve and process the appointment proposals of teachers, with a clear mandate to do so within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, ensuring that service and monetary benefits are granted accordingly (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Table of Content
1. approval requirements for teacher appointments (Para 1)
2. arguments against rejection of approval (Para 2 , 3)
3. no prior permission for minority institutions (Para 4)
4. non-minority schools must comply with prior permission (Para 5)
5. court's directive to approve appointments (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
6. final orders for approval of teacher appointments (Para 9)

ORDER :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records made in to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 480/A1/17 dated 20.12.2017 and quash the same and direct the 1 and 2 respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Assistant in the 3rd respondent school with effect from 11.09.2017 with all consequential benefits.)

In all these writ petitions, the private aided minority and non-minority schools have appointed various teaching staffs in their schools. The proposal sent by the school management to the concerned Educational Authority seeking for approval of the appointment of these teachers have been rejected, on one, or more of the following grounds:-

b) the appointee has not qualified in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET);

c) in view of the surplus teachers in the school, approval cannot be granted, unless such teachers are deployed to other schools;

d) existence of surplus teacher (s) in the corporate management of the school;

e) existence of surplus teachers in the District, where the school is situated;

f) the appointee is sought to be accommodated in a sanctioned vacancy by converting the sanctioned post; and

g) the appointee is sought to be accommodated in a post that has been upgraded from the sanctioned post.

2. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that all the aforesaid grounds on which the proposals from the school for approval of the appointments were rejected or has been kept pending, have already been considered by this Court in various decisions, whereby, this Court had rejected all these objections and consequently directed the Educational Authorities to grant approval of the appointments of these teachers.

3. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that among the grounds on which the school proposals were rejected, the issue as to whether approvals can be granted to a teacher in a school, where there are surplus teachers, in addition to the sanctioned number of teachers, is now pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.C.Nos.15702 of 2021 and 12693 of 2022.

4. I do not intend to delve into the sanctity of the objections raised by the Educational Authorities while rejecting the proposal of the schools, since all these objections have already been considered by this Court in various decisions. Thus, it would suffice, if these decisions, overcoming the grounds of objections raised by the Educational Authorities, are reproduced hereunder:

In a case when the Government refused to grant approval of appointment to the proposal made by the minority institution, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education and others Vs. J.Remila, passed in W.A.(MD)No.1350 of 2017, dated 14.11.2017, had placed reliance on Article 30 of the Constitution of India and held that a recognized minority educational institution has a right to establish and administer their institution and any claim for prior permission from the Government Authorities, for appointment of its teachers, would amount to abridgement/dilution of their constitutional rights. While holding so, the Hon'ble Division Bench had consequently held that no prior permission was required for a minority institution to appoint its own teaching and non-teaching staffs. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

“27.........In

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Mad) 859

Cases Referred (3)