Disposed

MurakalaPrakasam, v. The Director of Elementary

Madras HC30 Nov 2016WP/42081/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus for promotion to B.T. Headmaster citing seniority and a prior judgment. Since a fresh representation is required, the court directed the petitioner to submit one and the respondents to consider the claim on merits within a stipulated time, disposing of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit fresh representation within two weeks; respondents directed to consider claim and pass orders on merits within four weeks.

MurakalaPrakasam, Vs The Director of Elementary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 30.11.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

W.P.No.42081 of 2016

Murakalaprakasam

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai – 600 006. 2. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruvallur. 3. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer:

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith empanel and promote the petitioner as B.T.Headmaster pursuant to the petitioner placement in the Seniority List as on 01.01.2016 at Sl.No.11 therein, Gummidipoondi Union, Tiruvallur District, with consequential benefits.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.V.Anandha Moorthy, Additional Govt. Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶15

2.The present writ petition has been filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith empanel and promote the petitioner as B.T.Headmaster, pursuant to the placement in the Seniority List as on 01.01.2016 at Sl.No.11 therein, Gummidipoondi Union, Tiruvallur District, with consequential benefits.

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher through Employment Exchange in any Pro.Na.Ka.No.9004/A3/95 dated 27.09.1996 by the District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Elementary Educational Officer, Dharmapuri and he joined duty on 04.10.1996. Subsequently, he was transferred to Tiruvallur District on 17.03.1997 at his request and posted at

¶17

Gummidipoondi Union. Further, his probation was declared on 03.10.1998 AN and he was also promoted as Elementary School Head Master with effect from 12.08.2005. Now, the petitioner is serving as Elementary School Head Master in Pancahayat Union Elementary School, Pannur, Gummidipoondi Union.

¶18

According to the petitioner, at the time of his appointment, he possessed B.A. Degree (History). Thereafter, he acquired B.Ed. Degree. As his mother tongue is Telugu, he has not undergone his studies in Tamil Medium and therefore, he appeared for the second language test conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the month of November 1992 and passed the same.

¶19

Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though he is eligible for promotion to the Post of B.T.Headmaster, having possessed B.A. Degree (History), B.Ed. Degree, his name was not considered for promotion. Furthermore, in the seniority list as on 01.01.2016 of Secondary Grade Headmaster in Gummidipoondi Union, issued by the 3rd respondent on 02.02.2016, his name has been placed at Sl.No.11 and the persons, who have been placed at Sl.Nos.1,5,6,7,8, have been promoted as B.T.Headmaster w.e.f. 27.06.2012. However, he has not been promoted as B.T.Head Master. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 03.08.2016 to the respondents 2 and 3 requesting to give promotion to the post of B.T.Head Master. But, till date, there is no response on the said representation. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶20

In support of his contention, the petitioner also relied upon the Judgment of this Court dated 29.06.2012, passed in W.P.Nos.1416, 11340, 21370 and 21380 of 2011, wherein, it was held that if teachers pass the second class language test in Tamil as per the General Rules, even if they are teaching general subjects, their claim for inclusion of their names in the promotion panel would be justified and therefore, the petitioner would also seek the same relief.

¶21

Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader, who take notice for the respondents.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the petitioner to give fresh 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 such representation, the second respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner, in the light of the Judgment of this Court as stated above, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶23

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

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.35994 of 2016 is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Asst.Registrar (CS II )

¶27

/true copy/

¶28

Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Director of Elementary
Education,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The District Elementary
Educational Officer,
Tiruvallur.
3. The Assistant Elementary
Educational Officer,
Gummidipoondi,
Tiruvallur District.
+1 cc to M/s.M.Ravi,advocate,sr.71102
+1 cc to Government Pleader,sr.71049.
mv(co)
krd 7/12
W.P.No.42081 of 2016

¶29

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

MurakalaPrakasam, v. The Director of Elementary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MurakalaPrakasam, v. The Director of Elementary

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

The Secretary Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Mr.Balaji, Vs The District Collector

Tmt D Indirani Vs Tr Sekar Babu

K.G.Venkatesan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Gnanam, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

N.Subramanian, Vs The Principal Secretary to