Dismissed

R.S. Krishnamoorthy v. the Principal Secretary to

Madras HC20 Apr 2015WP(MD)/817/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to cancel the appointment of a Tailoring Teacher. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the suit as he was not connected to the respondent teacher's service and his representation was not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The Writ petition was dismissed. No costs awarded.

R.S. Krishnamoorthy Vs the Principal Secretary to — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.04.2015 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.817 of 2015

R.S.Krishnamoorthy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai.

¶9

2.The Director of School Education (Elementary), College Road, Nungampakkam, Chennai.

¶10

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunleveli.

¶11

4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

¶12

5.S.Manimehala

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 4 to take necessary action to cancel the illegal appointment of Tailoring Teacher Tmt.S.Manimehala, the 5^th respondent herein in the sanctioned post of Pre Vocational Instructress Teacher” (Weaving Teacher) by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 13.06.2014 and 27.06.2014.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganantham, AGP for R1 to 4 No appearance for R5

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner has come forward with the present Writ petition seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 4 to take necessary action to cancel the appointment of a Tailoring Teacher viz., Tmt.S.Manimehala, the 5^th respondent herein in the sanctioned post of Pre Vocational Instructress Teacher (Weaving Teacher) by considering the representations of the petitioner dated 13.06.2014 and 27.06.2014.

¶18

2.The petitioner is the husband of one Kothai Nayagi, who is working as a Secondary Grade Assistant Teacher in Ganesa Moorthy Middle School and he is the old student of the said school questioning the appointment of a Tailoring Teacher, the 5^th respondent herein. In this regard, he has also made representations to the respondents.

¶19

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶20

¶21

4.The petitioner is no way connected with the service of the 5^th respondent and hence, he has no locus standi to file the Writ petition, seeking such a relief, Eventhough the petitioner has restricted his prayer to consider his representations, the same is also not maintainable. Hence, the relief sought for in the Writ petition cannot be granted.

¶22

Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/

¶24

Sub- Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai.

¶27

2.The Director of School Education (Elementary), College Road, Nungampakkam, Chennai.

¶28

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunleveli.

¶29

4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

¶30

+1cc to M/s.S.C.Herold Singh, Advocate SR.No.20077 +1cc to Special Government Pleader SR.No.20357

¶31

sm:08.05.2015:2P/7C nbj W.P.(MD)No.817 of 2015 20.04.2015

¶32

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

R.S. Krishnamoorthy v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.S. Krishnamoorthy v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Samuel Sunil Dhass Vs the Director of Fisheries

R.Anbarasan, Vs the Senior Regional Manager

M.Pandian, S/O Murugayyan, Vs the Senior Regional Manager

R. Reena Rose, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

E. Ramakrishnan, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

M. Arumuganainar, Vs the Secretary to Govt.