Allowed

K.Subramanian v. the Joint Director of School

Madras HC6 Sept 2011WP/4341/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge held that a subordinate District Educational Officer lacked jurisdiction to review a previous order approving a petitioner's appointment as Headmaster. The court quashed the illegal cancellation order, citing that the Act provides only the State Government power via Section 45 and no provision exists for subordinate review. The impugned cancellation was set aside as without jurisd

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 31.01.2007 was set aside; the main writ petition allowed; no costs.

K.Subramanian Vs the Joint Director of School — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:06.09.2011

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

¶5

W.P.No.4341 OF 2007
AND
M.P.No.2 of 2007
K.Subramanian ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Director of School Education
Chennai-6.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Nagercoil.
3.The Correspondent
SMRV Higher Secondary School
Vadasery, Nagercoil ....Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the
file of the 2 nd respondent in proceedings No.10595/A1/2006 dated
31.01.2007 in reviewing its order and acting in violation of the
order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.485/2005 in
W.P.No.406 of 2005 dated 12.102006 and quash the same as illegal,
incompetent and without jurisdiction.

¶6

For petitioner: Ms.M.Himavanthi for Mr.V.Ragavachari For Respondents: Mr.N.Roojus Abraham Government Advocate

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

The matter came on being specially directed to be heard by the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 16.08.2011.

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

In this writ petition, the petitioner, who was appointed as Headmaster by the third respondent School, has challenged the order of the second respondent dated 31.01.2007. By the impugned order, the second respondent has cancelled the earlier order of approval given by the very same department dated 15.11.2006. Aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent, the writ petition came to be filed.

¶11

The writ petition was admitted on 08.02.2007. Pending the writ petition, interim stay was granted.

¶12

On notice from this Court, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated Nil (2007). In the meanwhile, one of the person by name P.Duraipandian who was earlier aspiring for the post, filed an application in M.P.No.3 of 2007 seeking to implead himself as a party to the writ petition and that application came to be dismissed by this Court on 24.08.2008 and it is not brought to the notice of this Court that the said order was subsequently challenged in the manner known to law. Since in the impugned order dated 31.01.2007, the second respondent referred to the pendency of Special leave Petition in SLP.No.18765 of 2006 as a reason why cancellation of the earlier approval, it is necessary to refer to the outcome of the said proceedings. The said SLP.was filed by the Teacher P.Durai Pandian challenging an order made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.485 of 2005 dated 12.10.2006. The writ appeal was directed against the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.38969 of 2004 filed by the present petitioner. The said writ petition was heard along with two other writ petitions and disposed of by a common order dated 22.02.2005. In the writ petition, the petitioner's writ petition viz., W.P.No.38969 of 2004 was allowed by this Court and the appointment of P.Duraipandian as Headmaster by the School Committee was cancelled and the School Committee was directed to consider all the eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Headmaster by strictly following the procedure enumerated under Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Aggrieved by the said order, the said Duraipandian filed Writ Appeal being W.A.No.485 of 2005. The said writ petition was heard along with a writ petition filed by the petitioner in the Madurai Bench in WP.(MD).No.406 of 2005 and was disposed of by a common order dated 12.10.2006. The Division Bench held that the School Committee must consider all eligible candidates for the post of Headmaster and there was no case for interfering with the order passed by the learned Judge. It is as against the said order, the SLP was filed and the SLP was converted into Civil Appeal No.5097 of 2009 and disposed of by the Supreme Court on 04.08.2009. The Supreme Court held that there was nothing wrong in the direction given by the learned Judge Single Judge and also the Division Bench and the School Committee cannot decide the matter by way of Ballot. The School Committee was enjoined upon to decide the rival claim based upon the seniority, educational qualification and

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

administrative ability as well as other qualities of the candidates for holding the post of Headmaster. Before disposing of the Civil Appeal, the Supreme Court took note of the subsequent fact namely pursuant to the direction issued by the Division Bench, the School Committee met on 25.10.2006 and in that meeting, the claim of the petitioner as well as the said Duraipandian was considered by a Resolution No.2 dated 25.10.2005. The petitioner was appointed on the basis of his merit and ability and proposals were sent to the second respondent for approval and the second respondent by order dated 15.11.2006, approved the appointment of the petitioner and in view of the same, the earlier appointment of Duraipandian is deemed to have been cancelled. The Court also took note of the fact that the impugned order in this writ petition came to be passed by the subsequent District Educational Officer and had directed this Court to dispose of the main writ petition.

¶15

Therefore, the only question was whether the second respondent was right in reviewing the earlier order dated 15.11.2006 and the impugned order dated 31.01.2007. Under the provision of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1974 and the rules framed thereunder, there is no provision for any reviewing power given to any subordinate authorities. Only under Section 45 of the Act, the State Government has power to call for and examine the record of any authority or officer prescribed for the purpose of Section 41 in respect of any proceedings to satisfy themselves as to the regularity of such proceedings, or correctness, legality or propriety of any order made, decision taken or direction issued therein. The State Government in such cases, is empowered to pass appropriate orders. Even while passing such order under Section 45 (2), it is made clear that no order prejudicial to any person should be passed, unless the person affected is given opportunity of making representations.

¶16

In the present case, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to review the earlier order of approval granted in favour of the petitioner. The only reason given was pendency of the Special Leave Petition. But that Special Leave Petition has been disposed of and the earlier order of the Division Bench was also given effect to by the School Committee, which considered the merit and ability of the petitioner and hence there is no impediment for the petitioner in holding the said post. It is not brought to the notice of this Court where Duraipandian has challenged the subsequent appointment of the petitioner in the manner known to law including the filing of any appeal under Rule 15(4-A) of the Rules. If any such appeal is there, then the disposal of the writ petition will not prevent the authorities from considering the same. In other respects, the impugned order of the second respondent is clearly without

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

jurisdiction and hence the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/Asst. Registrar

¶20

//true copy//

¶21

Sub Asst.Registrar
VJY
To
1.The Joint Director of School Education
Chennai-6.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Nagercoil.
3.The Correspondent
SMRV Higher Secondary School
Vadasery, Nagercoil
1 cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate, Sr.No.54999
1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.55069
W.P.No.4341 OF 2007
AND
M.P.No.2 of 2007
RSI {CO}
TP/19.9.2011.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Subramanian v. the Joint Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Subramanian v. the Joint Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Natarajan Vs the Commissioner

A.Murugesan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Allipappu Ammal, W/O. E.Venka- Vs the Director of Elementary

R. Srimathi Vs the Director of Rural

Indian Overseas Bank Award Vs Indian Overseas Bank

Ramakrishna Engineering Vs State Industries Promotion