Dismissed

Shiny Isabella Rahele, v. the District Elementary

Madras HC16 Mar 2018WP(MD)/2368/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a teacher seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first and second respondents to consider her representation for approval of her appointment with all service benefits based on a previous common order.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; first respondent directed to consider the representation and pass orders within eight weeks of receipt of the copy of this order.

Shiny Isabella Rahele, Vs the District Elementary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.03.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P (MD)No.2368 of 2018

¶3

Shiny Isabella Rahele ... Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, O/o.District Elementary Educational Officer,

¶6

Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶7

2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, O/o.the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kuruvikulam Range, Kuruvikulam, Tirunelveli District.

¶8

3.The Correspondent, T.D.T.A VM Middle School, Vagaikulam, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 03.01.2018 made in regard to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Graduate Assistant(Maths) Teacher in the third respondent school with effect from 14.10.2015 based on the proposal sent by the third respondent dated 12.02.2016 in the light of the common order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in WA.Nos.213 & 572/2016 etc., dated 24.08.2016 with all service and monetary benefits within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For petitioner : Mr.K.Sankar

¶12

For respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy,

¶13

1&2 Special Government Pleader For respondent 3 : No Appearance

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The petitioner was appointed in the third respondent school as B.T. Assistant (Maths) on 14.10.2015. The school submitted a

¶17

¶18

proposal dated 12.02.2016 for approval of the said appointment. The petitioner has also given a representation dated 03.01.2018 in this regard.

¶19

3.The first respondent is directed to consider the said

¶20

representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

4.This writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

Sd/

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶24

/True copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The District Elementary Educational Officer,

¶28

O/o.District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶29

2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,

¶30

O/o.the Assistant Elementary

¶31

Educational Officer,

¶32

Kuruvikulam Range, Kuruvikulam,

¶33

Tirunelveli District.

¶34

+1cc to Mr.K.Sankar Advocate, SR.No. 56123

¶35

+1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No.56481

¶36

W.P (MD)No.2368 of 2018

¶37

16.03.2018

¶38

skm

¶39

KK/RSK/20.03.2018/SAR-2/2P-5C

¶40

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

Shiny Isabella Rahele, v. the District Elementary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiny Isabella Rahele, v. the District 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

Harmander Singh, Vs P.Rajasekaran

S. Peerkhan, Vs the Secretary to Government

K.Sankar Ganesh Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

M.Vijay, S/O.Muthusamy, Vs the Joint Director of School

J.Sheela Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

H.Janakiraman Vs the Director of School