IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Revathi & Another – Appellants
Versus
Central Board of Secondary Education, Siksha Kendra, New Delhi & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 1422 & 5596 of 2022 & W.M.P.Nos. 1563 & 5684 of 2022
Decided On : 18-07-2023
WRIT - MAINTAINABILITY - PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION - ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL - APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS - CONTRACTUAL BASIS - TERMINATION AND REAPPOINTMENT - WRIT MAINTAINABLE - EDUCATION IS PUBLIC DUTY - TAMIL NADU RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOLS (REGULATION) ACT, 1973 - APPLICABILITY - SCHOOL RUN BY SOCIETY - STATE LAW APPLICABLE - QUALIFICATIONS OF TEACHERS NOT IN DISPUTE - APPOINTMENT ON MERITS - TERMINATION OF SERVICES ON CONTRACTUAL BASIS ILLEGAL - CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT DIRECTED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, teachers in Army Public School, challenged the termination of their services on the ground that their appointments were on a contractual basis for a fixed tenure. They contended that the appointments were made on merits and they were not appointed through back door entry. The respondents, Army Welfare Education Society and the school, contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as against a private educational institution and that the State Government had no role in controlling the school.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writ petition was maintainable as education is a public duty. It further held that the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 was applicable to the school run by the society and that the State law was applicable. The court found that the qualifications of the teachers were not in dispute and that they were appointed on merits. It held that the termination of their services on a contractual basis was illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable against a private educational institution? 2. Whether the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 is applicable to the school run by the society? 3. Whether the termination of the teachers' services on a contractual basis was legal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ petition is maintainable against a private educational institution as education is a public duty. 2. The Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 is applicable to the school run by the society as it is a private school established and administered by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 3. The termination of the teachers' services on a contractual basis was illegal as their qualifications were not in dispute and they were appointed on merits.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents to issue confirmation orders to the teachers within a specified period. It also directed the respondents to issue a confirmation letter regularizing the appointment of one of the teachers with effect from the completion of one year of probationary period, with continuity of service and 50% of back wages and all other attending benefits.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of impugned letter dated 12.11.2021 vide proceedings No.298/APS/Ch/AWES passed by the 4th respondent and consequently directing the respondents 4 and 5 to issue confirmation order as enlisted in the Application submitted by the 5th respondent School in the Final Submission dated 21.05.2012 to the petitioner within a stipulated time.)
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of impugned relieving order in letter No.APSC/RO/2022/2 dated 28.02.2022 passed by the 5th respondent and to quash the same and to direct the respondents 4 and 5 to issue confirmation letter thereby regularizing the petitioner in connection with his appointment of TGT (Mathematics) Teacher post with effect from the completion of one year of probationary period i.e., from 03.04.2017 with all monetary benefits as per judgement rendered in W.P.(C) No.1439 of 2013 dated 30.08.2013, which was upheld by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court by judgement dated 29.10.2015 and the same was confirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in by order dated 12.02.2016 in SLP (C) No.3609 of 2016.)
Common Order:
W.P.No.1422 of 2022 challenges the letter of the 4th respondent dated 12.11.2021 vide proceedings No.298/APS/Ch/AWES passed by the 4th respondent and seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 4 and 5 to issue a confirmation order as enlisted in the Application submitted by the 5th respondent School in the Final Submission dated 21.05.2012 to the petitioner within a stipulated time; and
W.P.No.5596 of 2022 challenges the relieving order issued by the 5th respondent in letter No.APSC/RO/2022/2 dated 28.02.2022 in respect of the petitioner and seeks a direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to issue a confirmation letter thereby regularizing his appointment as TGT (Mathematics) Teacher with effect from the completion of one year of probationary period i.e., from 03.04.2017 with all monetary benefits.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of W.P.No.1422 of 2022 are as follows:-
(a) The petitioner completed her B.Sc., (Chemistry) in 1990. She worked as a Science Teacher in Lord Krishna Matric School for Classes VI to VIII for the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. Thereafter, she joined B.Ed., in Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai and completed the course in 1992-93. After completion of her B.Ed., degree, she worked as Science Teacher in Mydeen Matric School, for classes VI to X.
(b) In the mean time, on 23.03.2002 she obtained a Diploma in School Administration through S.E.T. Madurai. She worked as a Chemistry Teacher at ARR Matric Higher Secondary School from 2004 to 2006 for IX and X standards. She took one year break. Then, she joined Velammal Matric Higher Secondary School, Surapet, Chennai as Chemistry Teacher for classes VI to IX and worked as such from 2007-2010. She also worked as NCC Cadet Teacher in that school since she held ''C'' Certificate in the course.
(c) She participated in the Written Test conducted by the 3rd respondent for Teachers of Army Welfare Education Society, Delhi, and got selected. She attended the interview on 21.02.2011 at Bangalore and got appointed as Science Teacher in Army Public School , Chennai, on 03.05.2011. At the time of appointment, she was informed by the 3rd respondent that the teachers should pass out Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET). Accordingly, she got through CTET conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), Delhi.
(d) On 03.11.2011, she got appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in the 5th respondent school for a period of 3 years. On completion of 3 years, though she was terminated on 03.05.2014 by the respondents 4 & 5, without any brea
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a service dispute involving a private educational institution and its employee is not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitut....
The Army Welfare Education Society is not a 'State' under Article 12, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply to private employment disputes.
The enforcement of service conditions in private unaided schools affiliated with CBSE is governed by contractual obligations, and disputes arising from such conditions do not invoke public law elemen....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.