Disposed

M.Vinayagam, v. the Director

Madras HC16 Feb 2017WP/13901/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Director, Department of Primary Education, to consider the petitioners' representations regarding their educational eligibility for appointment and pass an order on merits expeditiously, within twelve weeks, after giving both parties an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the representations and pass an order on merits within twelve weeks after providing opportunities to both parties.

M.Vinayagam, Vs the Director — Madras HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.02.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.13901 of 2011 M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶6

M.Vinayagam 2. M.Ramesh .. Petitioners Versus

¶7

The Director, Department of Primary Education, College Road, Chennai – 600006.

¶8

The District Elementary Educational Officer, District Elementary Educational Office, Kottai, Vellore District.

¶9

The Chief Educational Officer, Department of Education, Sathuvachari, Vellore 9.

¶10

The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Assistant Elementary Educational Office, Alangayam, Vellore District.

¶11

The Headmaster, Panchayat Union Primary School, Vallipattu, Alangayam Union, Vaniambadi Taluk, Vellore District.

¶12

The Headmaster, Panchayat Union Middle School, Madanancheri, Alangayam Union, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District.

¶13

Thiyagarajan

¶14

Sumitha .. Respondents [Respondents 7 & 8 are impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 25.08.2011 in

¶15

M.P.No.2/2011 in W.P.No.13901/2011]

¶16

Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 11.05.2011 and 21.05.2011.

¶17

For Petitioners : Ms.S.R.Vissalni for M/s.V.Raghavachari For RR1 to 4 : Mr.S.Navaneethan, AGP For RR5 to 8 : No Appearance

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition to direct the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 11.05.2011 and 21.05.2011.

¶21

According to the petitioners they have undergone 12 years of Schooling and completed 3 years of Bachelor's degree course in Mathematics in Annamalai University by Distance Education. However, the respondents 7 and 8 appear to have completed their Schooling and secured their graduation from the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in B.Sc. (Mathematics) after completing one year of study. The preliminary objection of the petitioners is that the respondents 7 and 8 have not undergone their School Education with Mathematics as the primary subject in any event. The Bachelors Degree obtained by them after one year of study cannot be equated to B.Sc. (Mathematics) degree course obtained by the petitioners after three years of study, though, both may be under the Distance System of Education. Hence, the petitioners made representation to the second respondent, but no order has been passed by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition with the afore said prayer.

¶22

On the contrary, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that pursuant to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011, any recruitment should be made only by the Teachers Recruitment Board, by conducting the Teachers Eligibility Test. Therefore, the eligibility and qualification shall be prescribed as per the notification, as far as the present case is concerned, the appointment of the petitioners is made prior to the notification or after the notification is to be decided only by the concerned authorities.

¶23

In view of the limited scope in the prayer, without going to the merits of the above statement made by the parties, this Court directs the first respondent / Department of Primary Education to consider the petitioners' representations dated 11.05.2011 and 21.05.2011 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after providing opportunities to both parties concerned.

¶24

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/Asst.Registrar

¶26

/true copy/

¶27

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

¶28

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶29

¶30

The Director,
Department of Primary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600006.
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
District Elementary Educational Office,
Kottai, Vellore District.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Department of Education,
Sathuvachari, Vellore 9.
4. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Assistant Elementary Educational Office,
Alangayam, Vellore District.
+1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari,Advocate sr.10346
+1cc to Government Pleader sr.10297
W.P.No.13901 of 2011
M.P.No.1 of 2011
ss1(co)
ss(3/3/2017)

¶31

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

M.Vinayagam, v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vinayagam, v. the Director

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

L.Lakshmi Vs the Taluk Tahsildar

P.Raman Vs the Joint Register of Co-Op

T.K.Beena, Vs the Chairman

State Bank of Patiala Vs the Sub Registrar

Akhila.B. Vs Director

Janbee Ammal Vs the Commissioner