Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2602 (MAD)

E. Yovan Shabi v. State of Tamil Nadu

2016-08-01

T.RAJA

body2016
ORDER : 1. Since the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions are one and the same, these matters are taken up together and disposed of, by this common order. 2. When these matters are taken up for hearing, all the parties fairly submitted that although the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions was already decided by the Apex Court, the main issue is still pending. By saying so, Mr. VR. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents produced an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.(MD).No.220 of 2016 dated 05.02.2016. Following the order of the Division Bench made in W.A.(MD).No.220 of 2016 dated 05.02.2016, this Court has disposed of the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.17878 of 2015 dated 05.07.2016. 3. At this juncture, it is necessary to extract paragraphs 4 to 8 of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1299 of 2015, dated 14.09.2015, which are given as under:- ''4. Be that as it may, the issue as to whether the provisions of the Act, will be applicable to a minority institution, is pending consideration in Aswinithanappan Vs. Director of Education and another, (2014) 8 SCC 272 . 5. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case as to whether a teacher appointed in a minority school is required to have TET qualification, as the same is the subject matter of the Writ petition, we are of the considered view that interest justice would sub-serve, if the appointment of the first respondent is protected, without giving any direction to the State Government to grant temporary approval. 6. Mr. D. Krishnakumar, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) appearing for the appellants fairly submits that the first respondent shall not be terminated during the pendency of the said writ petition being W.P.No.14072 of 2015. 7. Accordingly, we direct that the first respondent shall be given her salary in the course of her employment and no steps to remove her from service shall be taken till the disposal of the writ petition. However, it is made clear that this order is subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petition. It is further made clear that the first respondent shall not claim any equity on account of this order, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, therein. 8. However, it is made clear that this order is subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petition. It is further made clear that the first respondent shall not claim any equity on account of this order, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, therein. 8. This intra-Court appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.” 4. In view of the above, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of, with a direction to the official respondents to grant salary in the course of their employment within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and no steps to remove them from service shall be taken. However, it is made clear that these orders are subject to the final outcome of the case pending before the Supreme Court in Aswini Thanappan Vs. Director of Education and another, (2014) 8 SCC 272 . It is further made clear that the petitioner shall not claim any equity on account of this order, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.