Disposed

A.Pachimuthu, v. the Director of Elementary of

Madras HC7 Oct 2015WP/40028/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking approval for the appointment of a Head Mistress. Noting a counterm affidavit suggesting administrative action, the court directed the petitioner to submit a representation. The second respondent was directed to examine the representation and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation; second respondent directed to pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

A.Pachimuthu, Vs the Director of Elementary of — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.10.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No.40028 of 2002

¶6

Muslim Matharsha Elementary School, Palayamkotoor, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli,

¶7

Through its Secretary A.Pathamuthu .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6.
2. The District Elementary Education Officer,
S.N.High Road, Tirunelveli.
3. The Assistant Elementary Education Officer,
(Rural), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. .. Respondents

¶8

Petition is filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in Mu.Mu.No.2028.E.G.2/2000 dated 11.09.2001 and culminating further proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.13620/E.G.2/2002 dated 8.7.2002 on the file of the first respondent, quash the order dated 08.07.2002 and further direct the respondents to grant approval of the appointment of Smt.Jawarharunnissa as Head Mistress of the petitioner's school from 01.9.1993.

¶9

For Petitioner .. Mr.K.Srinivasan

¶10

For Respondents.. Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi,

¶11

Though the impugned order dated 08.07.2002 was passed on the ground that the appointment was made contrary to the rules and regulations, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in paragraph No.3 it has been stated as follows:

¶12

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

¶13

“3. It is submitted that Government in G.O.(2D) No.12 School Education (X2) Department dated 01.02.2011 has passed order allotting funds in the event of approval of appointment of Smt.Jawaharunnissa as Headmistress of the School from 01.09.1993 in the petitioner School. Hence, necessary action will be taken to approve the appointment of Smt.Jawaharunnissa from 01.09.1993. As such the Writ Petition may be dismissed.”

¶14

In the light of the same, the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the petitioner to give representation to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the representation, the second respondent is directed to look into the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter. raa

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-III)
/True Copy/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To

¶16

The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

¶17

The District Elementary Education Officer, S.N.High Road, Tirunelveli.

¶18

The Assistant Elementary Education Officer, (Rural), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

¶19

TS(CO) sd : 16/10/2015

¶20

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

A.Pachimuthu, v. the Director of Elementary of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Pachimuthu, v. the Director of Elementary of

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.Sharadha Vs The Commissioner of Survey

A.Devaki, Vs Secretary to Government

Sagaya Mary, Vs the District Collector

N. Radheshymlal Vs the Tahsildar, v.O.C.Nagar

Marur N.Dharmalingam Vs the Managing Director, the Tn

P.Ganapathy Vs the Asst.Divisional Engineer