Allowed

Dr.v.Ramakrishnan, v. the District Educational

Madras HC23 Jan 2018WP(MD)/1219/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a P.G. Assistant, challenged the promotion of another employee as Headmaster. He sought a certified copy of the promotion order to maintain a future petition. The Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the first respondent to furnish the order within one week.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to furnish a copy of the order promoting C.R.Manohar as Headmaster within one week from the date of the order.

Dr.v.Ramakrishnan, Vs the District Educational — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.01.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No1219 of 2018

¶7

Dr.V.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Educational Officer, Trichy-620 001.

¶10

2.The Headmaster, E.R.Higher Secondary School. Trichy-620 002. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to furnish the copy of the order of appointment of one C.R.Manohar as Headmaster in the second respondent school on the basis of the representation of the petitioner dated 08.01.2018 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Saravanan Government Advocate

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Heard Mr.B.Saravanan, learned counsel, takes notice for the petitioner and Mr.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the first respondent.

¶15

2.Considering the nature of relief sought for in this Writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petition notice to the second respondent is dispensed with.

¶16

¶17

3.By consent of both the parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶18

4.The petitioner herein is working as P.G. Assistant in the second respondent school. He is aggrieved by the promotion granted to one C.R.Manohar as Headmaster of the said school. The petitioner wants to challenge the said promotion. But to do so, he requires a certified copy of the order of promotion. Unless, the same is furnished to the petitioner, he cannot maintain a petition. The request of the petitioner is reasonable.

¶19

5.Therefore, the first respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the order, promoting the said C.R.Manohar as Headmaster of the second respondent school, within a period of one week from today.

¶20

6.The Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar (P & A)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The District Educational Officer, Trichy-620 001.

¶26

+1cc to M/S.B.SARAVANAN, Advocate SR.No.43811. +1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No.44022.

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.1219 of 2018 23.01.2018

¶28

tsg

¶29

SDS/SKN:RSK/SAR 3/29.01.2018/2P/4C

¶30

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

Dr.v.Ramakrishnan, v. the District Educational

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.v.Ramakrishnan, v. the District Educational

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

A.Alexander, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

The General Manager Vs the Presiding Officer

U.Sugumaran, S/O.Urangapuli Vs the Principal Secretary

A.a.Daniel Vs the Secretary

A.a.Daniel Vs the Secretary

G.Arokiyasamy, Vs the Principal Secretary to