Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, (MADURAI BENCH)
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, R. VIJAYAKUMAR, JJ.
The Secretary to Government Department of School Education Chennai & Others - Appellants
Versus
V. Jeevitha & Others – Respondents
W.A (MD). Nos. 80 & 308 of 2022 & CMP (MD). Nos. 925 & 3008 of 2022
Decided On : 08-03-2024
Teaching Experience - Appointment of Headmistress - G.O.Ms.No.97, School Education Department, dated 05.07.2001 - Rule 15(6) of Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two writ appeals challenging the non-approval of appointments of B.T.Assistant Teachers as Headmistresses in aided minority schools due to lack of required teaching experience.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mandatory qualification of five years of teaching experience for appointment as Headmistress cannot be relaxed by executive instructions or Government Orders. The court also emphasized the conditions for exemption under G.O.Ms.No.97, School Education Department, dated 05.07.2001 and the need for availability of fully qualified candidates before granting exemption.
Issues: The issues revolved around the relaxation of teaching experience for appointment as Headmistress, the legality of the appointments, and the availability of fully qualified candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the teaching experience requirement is mandatory and cannot be relaxed without fulfilling the conditions specified in the Government Order. It also emphasized the need for availability of fully qualified candidates before granting exemption.
Final Decision: The writ appeals were allowed, the orders of the writ court were set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the concerned authorities for re-consideration in light of the conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.97, School Education Department, dated 05.07.2001.
JUDGMENT :
R. Vijayakumar, J.
(Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the orders dated 19.07 2021 made in WP(MD).Nos.15428 of 2020 & 152 of 2021 and allow the above writ appeals.)
1. The facts leading to the filing of these writ appeals are as follows:
(ii) The petitioner in the said writ petition was appointed as B.T.Assistant on 12.08.2015 in an aided minority School. She was promoted as a Headmistress on 24.06.2016. A proposal was sent to the authorities for approval 18.08.2017. The said proposal was returned on the ground that the petitioner has not acquired five years of teaching experience. The School Management had filed W.P.No.10745 of 2018 seeking relaxation of five years experience and the same was dismissed on 26.04.2018. The writ appeal preferred by the Management in W.A.No.1405 of 2018 was also dismissed on 10.07.2018.
(iii) According to the petitioner, G.O.Ms.No.97, School Education Department, dated 05.07.2001 was not brought to the notice of the Court. Hence, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.2829 of 2019 to consider her representation dated 04.10.2018 in the light of G.O(3D).No.125, (School Education (B-1) Department), dated 21.09.2007. This Court was pleased to pass an order on 01.02.2019 directing the authorities to consider the plea of the writ petitioner. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the order impugned in the writ petition was passed rejecting the request of the writ petitioner. Hence, the petitioner had filed W.P(MD).No.15428 of 2020.
(iv) The writ Court relying upon the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD).No.676 of 2014 dated 25.03.2021 proceeded to allow the writ petition and directed the authorities to approve the promotion with effect from 12.08.2015 as Headmistress and pay salary of B.T.Assistant till she completes five years of teaching experience and thereafter, continue to pay the scale of pay applicable to the post of Headmistress. This order is under challenge in the present writ appeal.
2. W.A(MD).No.308 of 2022:
(ii) The writ Court by its order dated 19.07.2021 had allowed the writ petition on the ground that W.P(MD).No.15428 of 2020 filed by one Jeevitha has been allowed directing approval of her promotion as Headmistress. Therefore, there is a vacancy of B.T.Assistant(English) in which the petitioner could be accommodated. Challenging both the orders, the present writ appeals have been filed.
3. Contentions of the learned counsels:
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the mandatory qualification of teaching experience for appointment as Headmistress cannot be relaxed without fulfilling the conditions spec....
The court upheld the earlier ruling that a Headmaster's appointment without requisite experience is not entitled to salary adjustments, emphasizing the finality of procedural compliance in educationa....
The absence of a specific requirement for a headmistress to pass the TET under the 1978 Rules, and the non-retrospective application of the TET requirement to invalidate the respondent's prior appoin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with Government Orders and the futility of show cause notices after the passage of time.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the appellant's service to be regularised as a Headmistress, the inapplicability of the School Service Commission Act, 1997 to h....
Eligibility for promotion as Headmaster requires fulfillment of teaching experience and qualifications as per RTE Rules; amendments do not apply retrospectively.
The main legal principle established is that similarly placed individuals are entitled to be treated on par with others in the context of relaxation of teaching experience, as evidenced by government....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
