Dismissed

A.Ramalingam, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC14 Feb 2013WP/3704/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to promote a petitioner who had reached superannuation age to the post of Headmaster in a linguistic minority school. The Court held that management has sole power of appointment under Article 30(1), rendering the petition unmaintainable. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent school management to promote petitioner dismissed. No costs.

A.Ramalingam, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.02.2013

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

W.P.No.3704 of 2013

A.Ramalingam

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Secretary to Government Education Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

¶10

The Director of School Education DPI Campus, Chennai 6

¶11

The Joint Director of Higher Secondary Education Panagal buildings Saidapet, Chennai 15

¶12

The Chief Educational Officer Panagal building Saidapet Chennai 15

¶13

S.Jeyaraj

¶14

N.Gopalaiah 7. The Correspondent Kesari Higher Secondary School T.Nagar Chennai 17

¶15

The District Educational Officer Egmore, Chennai 8 .. Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Head Master in Kesari Higher Secondary School, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 with consequential monetary and other benefits.

¶17

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

¶18

For Petitioner :: Mr.M.Gnanasekar

¶19

For Respondents :: Mr.P.S.Sivashanmuga Sundaram A.G.P. For R1 to R4 & R8

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner in this Writ Petition is seeking for a direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Headmaster in the 7^th respondent School. Admittedly, the petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation on 31.7.2012 and thanks to the order obtained by him from this Court in W.P.No.20466 of 2012 dated 26.11.2012 and he is continuing on reemployment basis. He has to be relieved on 31.5.2013 as the reemployment period will come to an end as it is the end of the academic year. It is at this juncture, the petitioner is now seeking for a direction to promote him to the post of Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School.

¶22

It is not clear as to how such a request is maintainable when the petitioner had reached the normal age of superannuation and his services are utilized only on reemployment basis. In any event when the petitioner earlier filed two Writ Petitions being W.P.Nos.1780 of 2012 and 8619 of 2012, they were disposed of by a common order dated 4.7.2012. In the common order, it was recorded that the School in which the petitioner is working, is a linquistic minority School and the power of appointment of the Headmaster in such School solely vests with the Management. The petitioner challenged the order by filing two Writ Appeals being W.A.Nos.2795 and 2796 of 2012. However,the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 7.1.2013 dismissed the Writ Appeal and in paragraph No.6, it is stated as follows:

¶23

"6. On going through the entire materials placed on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the learned single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that as the School happens to be a linguistic minority Institution and the Management was not made as a party respondent to the proceedings to take action as per the report of the District Educational Officer, Chennai South, dated 25.2.2010, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable and the said order requires no interference."

¶24

Once it is accepted that it is the Minority School, the power of appointing the Headmaster or the Principal as the case may be vests solely with the educational agency running the said School, as the School is having a right under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution, which guarantees complete autonomy in the matter of internal administration of the School. In such a set up, the question of this Court interfering with the power of the appointment does not arise.

¶25

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

¶26

The position of law has been made clear by the Supreme Court in more than one decisions and it is only to necessary to cite only two decisions, namely, (i) N.AMMAD vs. Emjay High School reported in 1998 (6) SCC 674 and (ii) The Correspondent, Malankara Syrian Catholic School vs. J.Rabinson Jacob reported in 1998(3) MLJ 595.

¶27

In the light of the same, there is no case made out. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶28

Sd/

¶29

Asst.Registrar

¶30

/true copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar
ajr
To
1. The Secretary to Government
The Government of Tamil Nadu
Education Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The Director of School Education
DIP Campus,Chennai 6
3. The Joint Director of Higher Secondary Education
Panagal buildings
Saidapet,Chennai 15

¶31

The Chief Educational Officer
Panagal building
Saidapet, Chennai 15
5. The Correspondent
Kesari Higher Secondary School
T.Nagar, Chennai 17
6. The District Educational Officer
Egmore, Chennai 8
+1 CC MR.Gunasekar, Advocate SR.No.9365.
W.P.No.3704 of 2013
VS (CO)
DVR (27/02/2013)

¶32

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

A.Ramalingam, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Ramalingam, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Srinivasan @ Srinivasalu Vs the Management of Indian Drugs

P.Santhi Vs the Commissioner

M/S.Advanced Biotech Products Vs the Managing Director

A.Annadurai, Vs the Tahsildar

K.Ahamed Ali Vs the Principal Secretary/

Thirunavukkarasu Vs the Commissioner