S BABIYOLA MARY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 14.01.2015 passed by the third respondent / the Joint Director of School Education (Secondary Education), Chennai, rejecting the proposal sent by the sixth respondent School refusing to grant approval of appointment of the petitioner in the post B.T. Assistant (History) on the ground that the petitioner has not passed Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) on the date of her appointment i.e. 02.07.2012, besides stating that she was holding the dual degree in B.A. (History).

(2.) Mr.K.Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the sixth respondent School is a minority institution receiving grant-in-aid from the first respondent Government. Whileso, one Mr.K.S.O.Abdul Razak, serving as B.T. Assistant (History), retired from the services on 30.06.2012 on reaching the age of superannuation. Thereafter, in the said sanctioned post, the petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant (History) on 02.07.2012. It is also stated that she has passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) on 14.10.2012. Since Mr.K.S.O.Abdul Raza was relieved only on 07.12.2012 by the fifth respondent, the sixth respondent School sent a proposal on 21.12.2012 seeking approval of appointment of the petitioner. On receipt of the same, the fifth respondent has rejected the said proposal, vide his proceedings dated 24.01.2013, on the ground that the petitioner was holding the Double Degree in B.A. (History), which is, it is contended, wholly unacceptable and unjustified, in view of the fact that the petitioner had completed 10th standard in 1991, 12th standard in 1993, B.Sc. (Chemistry) in 1996 and B.Ed. in 1997, besides, she had also completed M.A. (Tamil) in 2008 and B.Lit. (Tamil) in 2009. Therefore, it is contended that the reason cited by the fifth respondent in the impugned proceeding that the petitioner was holding the dual degree in B.A. (History) cannot be sustained, as she had completed three years degree in B.Sc. (Chemistry) in the year 1996 itself.

(3.) Contending further that a pass in TET cannot be insisted upon for appointing any teacher in minority educational institution, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and others Vs. Union of India and others, 2014 4 MadLJ 486, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Act, insofar as it is made applicable to minority schools referred in Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution, is ultra vires of the Constitution, therefore, it is contended, denying approval of appointment of the petitioner as proposed by the sixth respondent school citing a reason that the petitioner failed to pass TET on the date of her appointment is totally misconceived.