Disposed

A.Vanniaraj v. the Director of Elementary

Madras HC1 Mar 2018WP(MD)/11516/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the writ petitioner's plea of bias against the enquiry officer, directed participation in the enquiry via the e-courts portal, and ordered expeditious conclusion of the proceeding on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner instructed to participate in enquiry via https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/; respondents to conduct enquiry expeditiously.

A.Vanniaraj Vs the Director of Elementary — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.03.2018 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶4

W.P.(MD) No.11516 of 2011 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011

¶5

A.Vanniaraj ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Director of Elementary Education, O/o. Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai.

¶8

2.The District Elementary Education Officer, District Elementary Education Office, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the 2^nd respondent in Na.ka.No.3137/Aa1/2011, dated 24.08.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to appoint some other competent authority to enquire into the complaint/representation dated 18.07.2011 as per my representation dated 08.09.2011.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.R.Sethuraman Special Government Pleader

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the District Elementary Educational Officer who was in service, during the relevant point of time has got certain personal bias against the writ petitioner and in the event of conducting an enquiry, the interest of the writ petitioner would be prejudiced.

¶14

2.However, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents states that thereafter, three officers had changed and presently one Mr.V.M.Samuel is functioning as the District Elementary Officer, Tuticorin.

¶15

3.The point raised in this writ petition deserves no further consideration and the writ petitioner has to participate in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents and the respondents are also required to conduct the enquiry as expeditiously as

¶16

¶17

possible and conclude the same on merits in accordance with law.

¶18

4.With these observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶19

Sd/ Assistant Registrar (Crl side) /True copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

1.The Director of Elementary Education, O/o. Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai.

¶23

2.The District Elementary Education Officer, District Elementary Education Office, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.A.THIRUVADI KUMAR Advocate, SR.No.52254 +1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No.53002

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.11516 of 2011 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 01.03.2018

¶26

RMI

¶27

KK/GT/21.03.2018/SAR-2/2P-5C

¶28

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

A.Vanniaraj v. the Director of Elementary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Vanniaraj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.T.N.Pranatharthi Haran, Vs the Accountant General-

V.Balasubramanian, Vs the Secretary to Government

G.Shobana, Vs the Member Secretary

T.Vijaya , D/O. a. Thankaraj, Vs the Joint Registrar of

S.Nadarajan, Vs the Inspector General of

G.Ramuthai @ Selvi, Vs the Deputy Generasl Manager