Partly allowed

The District Elementary v. M.Lalitha

Madras HC2 Aug 2017WA(MD)/420/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged an order directing the Chief Educational Officer to appoint the petitioner in an upgraded High School. The court held the Chief Educational Officer lacked jurisdiction, as High Schools are controlled by the Director of School Education. The order was modified to direct the correct authority; appeal dismissed subject to this modification.

What did the court decide?

Directed Director of School Education, Chennai, instead of Chief Educational Officer, to appoint petitioner as BT Assistant (English) in upgraded High School at K.Mettupatti within two months.

The District Elementary Vs M.Lalitha — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.08.2027

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.A.(MD).No.420 of 2014

¶7

and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014

¶8

1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶9

2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Sattur.

¶10

: Appellants/Respondents 1&2

¶11

Vs.

¶12

: 1^st Respondent/Writ Petitioner

¶13

1.M.Lalitha : 1^st Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2.R.Ramadevi : 2^nd Respondent/3^rd Respondent

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 07.01.2014 in W.P.(MD.). No.16938 of 2013.

¶15

Prayer in WP(MD). 16938/ 2013 :

¶16

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent dated 07/10/2013 in Na.Ka.No.3984/Aa4/2013 to reverting the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher and transfer to Panchayat Union Primary School, Mettaimalai, Sattur Union, and consequential order of the 1st respondent dated 07/10/2013 in Na.Ka.No. 3984/Aa4/2013 to transfer the 3rd respondent in the place of the petitioner as BT assistant (English) in Panchayat Union Middle School, A.Ramalingapuram and directing the respondents 1 and 2 to post the petitioner as BT Assistant English either in Panchayat Union Middle School, A.Ramalingapuram or in any other Panchayat Union School within Sattur Union.

¶17

For Appellants

¶18

: Mr.T.S.Mohamad Mohideen

¶19

Additional Government Pleader

¶20

For Respondent No.1

¶21

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

¶22

: Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel

¶23

For Mr.Parekh Kumar

¶24

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.] This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 07.01.2014 made in W.P.(MD).No.16938 of 2013.

¶27

2.The first respondent herein was working as BT Assistant (English) in the Panchayat Union Middle School, A.Ramalingapuram, Sattur Panchayat Union. The second respondent herein was working as BT Assistant (English) in the Panchayat Union School, K.Mettupatti, Sattur Panchayat Union. The Mettupatti Panchayat Union Middle School was upgraded as High School. The second respondent was given the option to work either in the Middle School in the same Panchayat Union or work in the newly upgraded High School. The second respondent has opted to work in the Panchayat Union Middle School, A.Ramalingapuram. As a result, the writ petitioner was reverted from the post of BT Assistant (English) and posted as Secondary grade teacher.

¶28

3.The said order of reversion dated 07.10.2013 was challenged by the first respondent herein by filing W.P.(MD).No.16938 of 2013. When the matter was taken up, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent herein submitted that since there is a vacancy in the upgraded High School at K.Mettupatti, the writ petitioner could be appointed in the said vacancy in the post of BT Assistant (English). Therefore a direction was given for accommodating the first respondent herein / writ petitioner as BT Assistant(English) in the upgraded High School at K.Mettupatti. The learned Judge made it clear that the writ petitioner cannot be made to suffer reversion for the option exercised by the second respondent herein. The writ petition was allowed and direction was given to the Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar to appoint the writ petitioner as BT Assistant (English) in the newly upgraded school at K.Mettupatti. This order is challenged in this writ appeal on the ground that the Chief Educational Officer is not the authority to pass orders and that the matter would come within the purview of the Director of School Education. The Middle schools come within the purview of the Director of Elementary Education while the High schools come under the control of the Director of school education. This contention is purely technical.

¶29

4.We therefore direct the Director of School Education, Chennai, to pass orders for accommodating the writ petitioner as BT Assistant (English) in the newly upgraded High School at K.Mettupetti. This exercise will have to be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order made in the writ petition is sustained except modifying to the extent indicated above. In other words instead https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of issuing direction to the Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, the direction is issued to the Director of School Education. With this modification of the order dated

¶30

¶31

07.01.2014 in W.P.(MD).No.16938 of 2013, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014 is closed.

¶32

Sd/Assistant Registrar(ADII)

¶33

/True Copy/

¶34

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

1.The Director of School Education, Chennai

¶37

2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Sattur. 4.The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.70594 +One cc to Mr.J.Parekhkumar, Advocate, SR.No.69636 tsg/skm RL/7C/3P/KP/SAR1/23/8/2017

¶38

Judgment made in W.A.(MD).No.420 of 2014

¶39

Dated: 02.8.2017

¶40

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

The District Elementary v. M.Lalitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The District Elementary v. M.Lalitha

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

R.Perumal, S/O. Ramasamy Vs the Assistant Director

The Government of Tamilnadu, Vs M.Manoharan

G.Kamaraj, Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative

Savariyappa Udayar Memorial Vs the Chief Educational Officer

T.Madavaraj Vs the Secretary to the

The Secretary, Vs Sivasubramanian