SHALINI NANCY Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, STATE OF TAMILNADU, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, FORT GT GEORGE, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.V.Anandamoorthy, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4.

(2.) The petitioner is a holder of B.Sc., degree as well as B.Ed., and also successfully completed the Post Graduate Degree in Tamil in Master of Arts from Annamalai University and claims that she is qualified to be appointed as B.T. Assistant. The petitioner would further aver that the 5th respondent / School is an Aided Minority Institution and she joined the services of De Valois Higher Secondary School, Kasam, Katpadi, during July 2009 as a Management Teacher, sponsored by the Parents-Teachers Association and on 10.09.2012, she was appointed as a B.T. Assistant [Science] in the place of Tr.Samuel Surendaradoss, who was in the services of the 5th respondent / School, consequent upon his transfer as B.T. Assistant [Science] to De Valois Higher Secondary School, Kasam, Katpadi. The 5th respondent submitted a proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment to the 4th respondent on 18.10.2012 and pending approval, the petitioner continues to discharge her duties honestly and sincerely. However, the 4th respondent has returned the proposal vide impugned proceedings dated 06.03.2013 on the ground that as per the provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2008, the petitioner has not passed the Teacher Eligibility Test [TET] and hence, the proposal for approval of her appointment cannot be considered and returned the same and challenging the legality of the same, the petitioner came forward to file the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court [The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department, Fort St George, Chennai-9 and others Vs. S.Jeyalakshmi and others, 2016 5 CTC 639], and would submit that in the above cited judgment, the judgment [Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust V. Union of India, 2014 8 SCC 1] has been followed and as per the ratio laid down in the said decision, the Government cannot insist upon the Minority Institution, both Aided and Unaided, to abide by any Regulation framed under the provisions of the RTE Act and therefore, G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education [C2] Department dated 15.11.2011, is not applicable to the Minority Institutions and in the light of the said decision, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for quashment of the written Memo dated 06.03.2013 issued by the 4th respondent with a further direction to approve the appointment of the petitioner and to pay arrears of salary.