#teacher Archives - Prime Legal

28 Jun

College Teacher’s Apology Not Enough to Dismiss Criminal Charges: Madras High Court.

Blog #apologyletter, #college, #MadrasHC, #teacher, #violentprotest

The Madras High Court ruled yesterday that a criminal case against a college teacher in Chennai cannot be quashed, stating that teacher protests on college campuses are a serious concern that cannot be encouraged.

A letter of apology from the petitioner-teacher was rejected by Justice G Jayachandran in an order dated June 13, and further stated that the criminal case against him could not be quashed. The petitioner, having resorted to violent protests within the college grounds, cannot circumvent judicial procedures by simply providing a letter of apology, the High Court further stated.

“An affidavit of apology cannot be entertained to quash the prosecution launched for offence of this kind. Criminal Procedure Code provides for bargain, or plead guilty or compound. Bye-passing the procedures and quashing criminal prosecution, by obtaining apology letter for an act of violence inside the college campus by the teaching staff is not in the interest of justice. Hence, quash petition is dismissed,” the Court stated.

Following a complaint filed by the interim administrator of the Trust, a retired High Court judge, in 2019, T.V. Swaminathan (Petitioner) and a number of other teaching and non-teaching staff members were arrested by the city police. According to the complaint, when the college committee meeting was scheduled to take place on campus, the petitioner and other participants organized protests. The temporary administrator, who was appointed by the High Court for streamlining the administration of the Trust-run institute, was to preside over the meeting. The petitioner is free to appear before the trial court to request relief by “either resorting to plea bargain or by compounding,” according to Justice Jayachandran.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

18 Jun

Calcuttta High Court sets New Precedent; Orders Bengal Government to impose 1% reservation for Transgenders in Public Employment.

Prime Legal

Blog #calcuttahighcourt, #Education department, #teacher, #transgender#equality#equalrights#protection

The Calcutta High Court in the case of Mrinal Barik v. State of West Bengal & Ors., has now set a new precedent, in which the issue was a petition filed by a transwoman who sought an appointment as a teacher. She had passed the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) in 2014 and 2022 but was not invited for the counselling process or interview. The West Bengal government has been ordered by the High Court to impose a one percent reservation for transgender individuals in State public employment roles.

The Calcutta High Court noted that there was also a State policy from 2022 in West Bengal that mandated treating transgender people equally in the workplace. The High Court did, however, instruct the government to follow suit because the State government had not yet established any reservations for transgender people seeking employment. Now, In the order dated June 14, the High Court requested that the relevant State entity schedule the petitioner’s interview and counselling as a special case and hire her to work as an assistant teacher in the primary section.

Written by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

4 Jun

Rajasthan HC directs State Government to look into the absence of State Counsel representation in legal proceedings

Prime Legal

Blog #governor, #Rajasthanhighcourt, #SpecialEducation, #teacher, #writpetition

CASE TITLE – Rekha Kumari v. State Of Rajasthan.

CASE NUMBER – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3015/2019

DATED ON – 15.03.2024

QUORUM – Hon’ble Justice Ganesh Ram Meena

FACTS OF THE CASE

Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv. and Mr. Shubhendu Pilania, Adv., on behalf of Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG, representing all respondents, request three weeks to file a reply. On January 22, 2020, this Court instructed the petitioner’s attorney to provide a copy of the petition to Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG’s office and to file the case after indicating Mr. Saini’s name in the cause-list. Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG, represented the respondents on February 3, 2020, and requested two weeks to provide a response. On September 15, 2023, Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG, representing the respondents, requested an extension of time to submit their reply, and this request was granted. Once more, now, more than four years later, the respondent State’s attorneys ask for extra time to file a response. The issues concern the petitioners’ claim to be appointed to the Grade III (Special Education) Teacher post. The unemployed people who have come before this court as petitioners are doing so in order to pursue justice. Although they were served four years ago, the respondent-State, which is regarded as a welfare state, is pleading for more time to submit a response.

ISSUE

Whether the State can be given time to file a reply.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan noticed that the respondent authority’s sluggish attitude demonstrates that they are not operating as a welfare state, and this type of behaviour might have disastrous effects on the entire legal system, which is why poor unemployed litigants are turning to the courts in the first place. The court has also evidently noticed that the respondent-State is not being adequately represented by the Officer or its solicitors for the past two months. It has been brought to the attention of the Rajasthani government, the chief secretary, and the principal secretary of the law and legal affairs department several times, but as of yet, no adequate plan has been established for the state’s representation. The absence of State counsel is the reason for the adjournment of several cases. A few days ago, this Court also learned of a lawsuit that the State had brought, in which no one had represented the State on two or three occasions. In the aforementioned case, this Court believes that the Governor of Rajasthan, His Excellency, should be informed of the issue so that the State Government can investigate and the State’s interests can be protected throughout the legal process and any rulings rendered by the Court. The court ordered that a copy of this order must be sent by the Registrar (Judicial) to the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan, His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan, and the Principal Secretary of the Law and Legal Affairs Department of the Government of Rajasthan. For the sake of fairness, the Hon’ble High Court gave the respondents two weeks as a last chance to file a reply, subject to the respondent state paying each petitioner’s costs of Rs. 10,000 in the event that the reply is not submitted by the next listing date.

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

21 Feb

The NIOS’s 18-month D.El.Ed. Diploma programme in elementary education is not equivalent to a two-year regular diploma: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #diploma, #education, #MHRD, #SupremeCourt, #teacher

Case title: Jaiveer Singh and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Case no.: SLP (C) No. 23943 of 2022

Decided on: 28.11.2023

Quorum: Hon’ble Chief Justice B.R Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Prasanth Kumar Mishra.

Hon’ble Justices stated that “we find that the High Court erred in holding that 18 months Diploma conducted by NIOS through ODL mode is equivalent to the 2 years regular Diploma, particularly so, when there was no material placed on record to even remotely hold that such a qualification was recommended by the Expert Body NCTE. On the contrary, the communication dated 6th September 2019 of NCTE, the directives of MHRD so also the recognition order dated 22nd September 2017 clearly go on to show that the 18 months Diploma was provided as a one-time window to the in-service teachers to acquire the minimum qualifications between the 2017 Amendment Act and the outer limit of 1st April 2019. In our considered view, the High Court has totally erred in holding that the 2 years Diploma is equivalent to 18 months Diploma.”

BRIEF FACTS:

These appeals challenge the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in a bunch of writ petitions which were filed challenging the order issued by the Secretary, Department of Elementary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The High Court held that the 18 months Diploma in Elementary Education conducted through the Open and Distance Learning mode in elementary education by the National Institute of Open Schooling is a valid Diploma for applying against the regular posts of Assistant Teachers in the State of Uttarakhand. The High Court therefore directed the State to consider the candidatures of the petitioners therein for the said post on the basis of the applications made by them pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Department of Elementary Education, Government of Uttarakhand.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

After considering the arguments made by the counsel, the Supreme Court stated, It is evident that the law is trite in that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions; however, if the rules are silent on a particular issue, it can fill in the blanks, supplement the rules, and issue instructions that are not at odds with the rules already framed. It is a well-established legal principle that an authority cannot issue orders/office memorandums/executive instructions that contradict statutory rules. However, instructions may only be issued to supplement, not replace, the statutory rules.

The Court also stated that there is no doubt that NCTE, as an expert body, has the authority to prescribe minimum qualifications, which it has done in the current case by issuing notifications. It also stated that the recognition order only allows in-service teachers to complete their courses before April 1, 2019. As a result, the supreme court granted the appeals and reversed the High Court’s decision.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

20 Jul

Madras High Court directs Army Public School to regularize Teacher with effect from the completion of one year of probationary period.

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #Army School, #CBSE, #Justice N. Satish Kumar, #MadrasHighCourt, #teacher

TITLE: Mrs. Revathi Vs. CBSE Siksha Kendra and Ors.

Decided On: July 18, 2023.

Writ Petition Nos.1422 and 5596 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.1563 & 5684 of 2022 W.P.No.1422 of 2022.

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Satish Kumar.

Introduction:

W.P.No.1422 of 2022 challenges the letter of the 4th respondent dated 12.11.2021 vide proceedings No.298/APS/Ch/AWES passed by the 4^th respondent and seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 4 and 5 to issue a confirmation order as enlisted in the Application submitted by the 5th respondent School in the Final Submission dated 21.05.2012 to the petitioner within a stipulated time; and W.P.No.5596 of 2022 challenges the relieving order issued by the 5^th respondent in letter No.APSC/RO/2022/2 dated 28.02.2022 in respect of the petitioner and seeks a direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to issue a confirmation letter thereby regularizing his appointment as TGT (Mathematics) Teacher with effect from the completion of one year of probationary period i.e., from 03.04.2017 with all monetary benefits.

Facts:

The petitioner completed her B.Sc., (Chemistry) in 1990. She worked as a Science Teacher in Lord Krishna Matric School for Classes VI to VIII for the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. Thereafter, she joined B.Ed., in Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai and completed the course in 1992-93. After completion of her B.Ed., degree, she worked as Science Teacher in Mydeen Matric School, for classes VI to X. In the meantime, on 23.03.2002 she obtained a Diploma in School Administration through S.E.T. Madurai. She worked as a Chemistry Teacher at ARR Matric Higher Secondary School from 2004 to 2006 for IX and X standards. She took one year break. Then, she joined Velammal Matric Higher Secondary School, Surapet, Chennai as Chemistry Teacher for classes VI to IX and worked as such from 2007-2010. She also worked as NCC Cadet Teacher in that school since she held ‘C’ Certificate in the course. In the meantime, on the information which she got through the Right to Information Act, she came to know that her appointment which was made on 03.05.2011 got confirmed on 31.03.2012 and her second appointment which was made on 08.11.2018 got confirmed on 31.03.2012 and she became a permanent teaching staff and she could not be termed as a contractual staff. Suppressing the earlier two confirmation of appointments dated 31.03.2012 and 08.11.2019, the respondents 4 & 5 issued termination orders repeatedly. It is highly illegal and unlawful. She should be treated as permanent teaching staff w.e.f. 31.03.2012 and placed under permanent category.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

Much reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 & 5 on the circular issued by the Army Welfare Education Society on 28.03.2023 in B/45785/Affiliation/AWES to state that State Government has no role whatsoever in the above said matter and an interpretation has been given by the Army Welfare Education Society itself to the effect that since the ownership of land allotted for Armed Forces Children Schools including the school buildings etc. continues with the Government and are located in defence land and the funds from which the buildings are constructed are provisioned by the QMG’s Branch, IHQ, Ministry of Defence (Army), from the budgetary sp allotted by respective service HQ by GOI, and the schools are managed by Local Military Authorities as per GOI provisions, the state Government have no role whatsoever in the matter. This court is of the view that such interpretation by themselves have no legs to stand. The respondents 4 & 5 cannot contend that they are not amenable to any State law when the law is operating the field and it applies to a school established in Tamil Nadu whether it receives grant from the government or not, or any other institution imparting education or training, established and administered or maintained by any person or body of persons, and recognized by the competent authority under this Act which would come within the ambit of private school Affiliation Bye-Laws 2018 refer to by the respondents 4 & 5 would make it very clear that every school managed by a society formed either by Central or State Government, Public Sector Undertakings, Statutory Bodies or established by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act has to obtain a “No Objection Certificate” from the appropriate State Government under Rule 2.3.5. In such view of the matter, this court is of the view that as qualifications of the writ petitioners are not in dispute, their selection was also not through back door method, and they were appointed on merits and the petitioner in W.P.No.1422 of 2022 has put in service for more than 11 years and as long as her qualification is not in dispute, she should be made as permanent and the respondents 3 to 5 cannot take advantage of the letter of appointment given to her for a fixed term of three years.

Conclusion:

The writ petitions are allowed. The respondents 4 & 5 are directed to issue a confirmation order as enlisted in the Application submitted by the 5th respondent School in the Financial Submission dated 21.05.2012 to
the petitioner in W.P.No.1422 of 2022 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The relieving order issued by the 5^th respondent to the petitioner in W.P.No.5596 of 2022 is set aside and the respondents 4 & 5 are directed to issue a confirmation letter regularizing his appointment as TGT (Mathematics) Teacher with effect from the completion of one year of probationary period, i.e., from 03.04.2017 with continuity of service and 50% of back wages and all other attending benefits.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

1 2