Dismissed

Tamilnadu Private School v. the Chief Educational Officer

Madras HC8 Apr 2015WP/2658/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Private School Teacher Sangam seeking a direction to dispose of a representation opposing an employee's promotion. The court found that the petitioner did not approach it due to a valid senior citizen's oversight and noted the petitioner's request came too close to the employee's retirement date, leaving nothing for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition failed and was dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Tamilnadu Private School Vs the Chief… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.04.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.2658 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

Tamil Nadu Private School Teacher Sangam
Rep. by its General Secretary,
K.Palani ...Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Chennai Educational District,
Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Central Madras District,
Saidapet, Chennai -15.
3.The Correspondent and Secretary,
Y.M.C.A. Sports Higher Secondary School,
Nandanam, Chennai -35.

¶7

4.Jayalakshmi Raman ...Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Mandamus, directing respondents to dispose the representation dated 03.10.2013.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Bharathy For Respondents : Mr.S.Gunasekaran Government Advocate

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

According to the petitioner Sangam, it is functioning in the third respondent school for the past 33 years. The 4th respondent was appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 2005. It is stated that thereafter she was given promotion to the post of Record Clerk. I am of the view that instead of stating that the 4th respondent was appointed as Office Assistant, the petitioner has wrongly mentioned that 4th respondent was appointed as Junior Assistant. Junior Assistant is higher post than Record Clerk.

¶12

The petitioner Sangam has submitted a representation dated 03.10.2013 to respondents 1 and 2 not to grant approval for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ promotion of the 4th respondent to the post of Record Clerk. The

¶13

petitioner has come up with this writ petition, seeking for a direction to the respondents to dispose of the said representation.

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

It is the case of the petitioner Sangam that a senior person to the 4th respondent was overlooked in the matter of promotion to the post of Record Clerk. If it is so, the concerned person should approach this Court questioning the promotion of the 4th respondent or the concerned person should make a representation in this regard. The concerned person is not before this Court. Hence, I am not inclined to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation. Further, it is also found from the representation dated 30.04.2013 that 4th respondent was to retire on 10.01.2014. At this point of time, she would have retired from service. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.

¶16

In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is
dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Chennai Educational District,
Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Central Madras District,
Saidapet, Chennai -15.
+1 cc to M/s.D.Bharathy, Advocate,SR.19422
+1 cc to Government Pleader,SR.19892.
br(co)
krd 20/4
W.P.No.2658 of 2014

¶17

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

Tamilnadu Private School v. the Chief Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilnadu Private School v. the Chief Educational Officer

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

A.Somasundaram Vs The Secretary to Government

Tmt.K.Saridha Vs The Director/Commissioner

R.Annadurai Vs The Regional Deputy Director

M.Renganathan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

D.Umapathi Vs the Commissioner of Municipal

A.Halimabee Vs The State of Tamilnadu