Partly allowed

V.Thiruneelakanda Boopathy v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC14 Jun 2018WMP(MD)/11766/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court held that educational district coordinators cannot be compelled to participate in the counselling process. The court granted an interim stay on the impugned order directing them to take part in counselling.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay of the impugned order directing petitioners to take part in the counselling process granted.

V.Thiruneelakanda Boopathy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Special Original Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Fourteenth day of June Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

WMP(MD) Nos.11766 and 11768 of 2018 IN WP(MD) Nos.12873 and 12874 of 2018

¶7

V.THIRUNEELAKANDA BOOPATHY EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT COORDINATOR, PARAMAKUDI,

¶8

RASHTRIYA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA ABHIYAN, CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,

¶9

RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶10

IN WMP(MD)NO.11766/2018 IN WP(MD)NO.12873/2018

¶11

A.RAMESH KANNA EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT COORDINATOR, RAMANATHAPURAM RASHTRIYA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA ABHIYAN, CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶12

IN WMP(MD)NO.11768/2018 IN WP(MD)NO.12874/2018

¶13

1 THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI -9.

¶14

2 THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, NUGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 6.

¶15

3 THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (PERSONNEL), O/O THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, CHENNAI - 600 006.

¶16

4 THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (HIGHER SECONDARY), O/O. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, CHENNAI - 600 006.

¶17

5 THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER/ DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, O/O THE CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER, ARANMANAI, RAMANATHAPURAM, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ IN BOTH THE PETITIONS

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

Common Prayer in WMP(MD)No.11766and 11768 /2018 in WP(MD)NOS. 12873 and 12874 / 2018 :

¶22

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to grant an Ad-internet stay of operation of the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. 35476/W1/E1/2018 dated Nil.06.2018 pending disposal of the writ petition in respectively.

¶23

Common Prayer in WP(MD). 12873and 12874 / 2018 :

¶24

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.35476/W1/E1/2018 dated Nil.06.2018 (published in the internet on 11.06.2018) and quash the same as illegal and pass such further or other orders in respectively.

¶25

ORDER : These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.MOHAMMED IMRAN, Advocate for M/S.AJMAL ASSOCIATES, Advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions and of MRS.S.SRIMATHY, Special Government Pleader for the respondents in both the petitions the court made the following order:-

¶26

The petitioners are working as Educational District CoOrdinators in Sarva Shiska Abhiyan. By an order impugned in this writ petition they have been directed to take part in the counselling. The petitioners did not want to take part in the counselling. Hence this Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot be compelled to take part in the counselling process.

¶27

Hence, there shall be an order of interim stay.

¶28

It is made clear that the interim order of stay will not give any way for the department to effect the transfer of the petitioners if they so want.

¶29

If the department passed any interim order of transfer, the petitioners shall not be allowed to take the plea that they have not given any opportunity.

sd/-

14/06/2018

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

¶37

1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, STATE OF TAMIL NADU SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI -9.

¶38

2 THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, NUGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 6.

¶39

3 THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (PERSONNEL), O/O THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, CHENNAI - 600 006.

¶40

4 THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (HIGHER SECONDARY), O/O. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, CHENNAI - 600 006.

¶41

5 THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER/ DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, O/O THE CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER, ARANMANAI, RAMANATHAPURAM, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶42

+2. C.C. to M/S.AJMAL ASSOCIATES Advocate SR.No.10495, 10496 GJM/CM/VR/RNB/18.6.18-3P-8C

¶43

WMP(MD) Nos.11766 and 11768 of 2018 IN

¶44

WP(MD) Nos.12873 and 12874 of 2018

¶45

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

V.Thiruneelakanda Boopathy v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Thiruneelakanda Boopathy v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

V.Ponnuchamy Vs the District Collector

Jeyarani Ganapathimuthu Vs the Rdo

T.T.K. Construction, Vs the Commissioner

P.Vasanthamalar, Vs the Tamilnadu Generation and

G.Umamaheswari, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

R.Ragunath Vs G.Prabhu