By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.K.Dhananjayan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4.
2 The petitioner would aver that she was selected by the Archdiocesan Board of Education vide proceedings dated 17.08.2015 as B.T.Assistant [Maths] and based on the same, the 5th respondent appointed the petitioner in that post with effect from 05.01.2016 in the vacancy caused on account of the promotion of one Tr.S.Yesu Jayapragasam. According to the petitioner, it is a regular sanctioned post with grant-in-aid from the Government and the petitioner joined in that capacity with effect from that date. The petitioner would further aver that the 5th respondent / School is established and administered by the Archdiocese of Pondicherry and the said Archdiocese is a registered Society in the name and style of Le Conseil D' Administration De I' Arch Diocese De Pondicherry, bearing Registration S.No.43/1973 for the purpose of legal perpetuity and it has been established and is administering a number of educational institutions for the welfare of the catholic Christian Minority Community in the Union of Puducherry and in the Revenue Districts of Villupuram and Cuddalore in Tamil Nadu and it is also a religious charitable educational organisation run by the said Diocese and it is a Minority Educational Institution and its rights are guaranteed under
Article 30[1] of the Constitution of India. It is also stated by the petitioner that approval of her appointment was forwarded to the educational authorities on 05.05.2016 and the 4th respondent, vide proceedings dated 13.05.2016, had returned the proposal stating among other things, there are certain defects in the said proposal and directed to re-submit after rectification and accordingly, the defects were rectified and re-submitted on 12.05.2016 and however, the 4th respondent has returned the same on 25.07.2016 stating that the petitioner has not passed / completed the Teacher Eligibility Test [TET]. By way of re-submission, it was pointed out by the 5th respondent that since the petitioner is employed in the religious Minority Educational Institution, passing of TET is not mandatory and however, once again, it was returned on 29.12.2016 by the 4th respondent. Challenging the legality of the order of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.NO.181 dated 15.11.2011 as well as the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 29.12.2016, the petitioner came forward to file the present writ petition.
3 Dr. Father Xavier Arul Raj, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.A.Arul Mary, learned counsel on record, has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2016 [7] MLJ 155 [Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department, Chennai-9 and others Vs. S.Jeyalakshmi and others], as well as the judgment dated 24.11.2016 made in WA [MD] NO.1019/2013 etc., batch, and the order dated 15.12.2016 made in WP.Nos.43302 to 43305/2016 and would submit that as per the above cited Division Bench judgment, a teacher working in Religious Minority Educational Institution is not required to pass TET as the provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2008, cannot be made applicable to them and therefore, prays for quashment of the impugned orders.
4 Per contra, Mr.K.Dhananjayan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would contend that legal advise is being sought, to challenge the decision rendered in [2016] 7 MLJ 155 [cited supra] and prays for time to get further instructions.
5 This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.
6 It is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.59, 60 and 62 of the Division Bench Judgment reported in 2016 [7] MLJ 155 [cited supra]:-
......
59.Insofar as Minority Institutions are concerned, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Minority Schools is that when Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools [Regulation] Act, 1973 received the assent of the President of India and it is still in force, it cannot be supplanted by an Executive Order, namely by G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 15.11.2011. Further, the Apex Court has clearly held in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust that RTE Act, 2009 is not applicable to the Minority Institutions. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the right conferred under
Article 30[1] of the Constitution cannot be abrogated. Consequently, G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 15.11.2011 which was issued pursuant to the directions of NCTE, cannot be made applicable to the Minority Institutions.
60.In the light of the above, we are of the view that 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. Therefore, we hold that G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education [C2] Department dated 15.11.2011, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, is not applicable to the Minority Institutions. Similarly, G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 18.03.2015 issued by the Government of Puducherry, is also not applicable to the Minority Institutions.
.....
62.However, keeping in mind the larger interest in which the Government has issued the above G.Os., this Court feels that the Minority Institutions may also consider conducting a refresher course and also some interactive sessions to all the Teachers during annual vacation, in order to ensure and improve the quality of Teachers. 7 In the considered opinion of the Court, the above cited decision which has been followed in the subsequent two orders, are fully applicable to the facts of this case as it is not in dispute that the approval of the petitioner's appointment sought, is in respect of a sanctioned post, that too, in a religious Minority Educational Institution.
8 In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 15.11.2011 and 26.12.2016 passed by the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent respectively are set aside and the 4th respondent is directed to take appropriate steps for granting approval of the petitioner's appointment subject to fulfillment of all other norms and the said official is also directed to release the salary of the petitioner as well as the arrears of salary, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that in the light of the observation made in Paragraph No.62 of the above cited judgment, the 5th respondent, taking into consideration the interest and welfare of the students, shall also conduct refresher courses and interactive sessions during annual vacations and other holidays in order M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AP to ensure and improve the quality of teaching. It is the bounden duty of the petitioner to improve her quality of education in larger interest of the student community. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
23.01.2017 Index : No Internet : Yes AP To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Department of School Education, Fort St George, Madras 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer O/o.The Chief Educational Officer Villupuram 605 602.
4.The District Educational Officer O/o.The District Educational Officer Thindivanam-1.
5.The Correspondent Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School Anilady [Post], Perithatchoor [via] Villupuram District 605651.
W.P.No.1555/2017 http://www.judis.nic.in