Allowed

S.Vasanthi v. the District Educational

Madras HC8 Mar 2018WP(MD)/2377/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed a writ petition challenging the District Educational Officer's refusal to approve a school assistant's appointment. Holding that Director's prior permission is unnecessary, the Court quashed the order and directed the approval of the appointment and payment of benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; appointment of petitioner as Office Assistant approved; grant-in-aid for salary and benefits ordered to be disbursed immediately.

S.Vasanthi Vs the District Educational — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.03.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.2377 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD).No.2592 of 2018

¶7

S.Vasanthi

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

1.The District Educational Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶10

2.The Correspondent,

¶11

Mangayarkarasi Higher Secondary School, West Annathoppu Street, Madurai-625016, Madurai. ...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the first respondent herein O.Mu.No.134/A5/2018 dated 11.01.2018, quash the same and direct the first respondent herein to approve forthwith the appointment of the petitioner as an Office Assistant in the second respondent school with effect from 03.01.2018 onwards with salary and other attendant benefits.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.E.V.N.Siva For Respondents : Mrs.Srimathy for R1 Additional Government Pleader : No Appearance for R2 ***

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶16

2.By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

3.The petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in the second respondent/School on 03.01.2018.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

4.It is not in dispute that the appointment was made in respect of the sanctioned post and the petitioner is also possessing the requisite eligibility qualification. Therefore, the first respondent was not justified in declining approval on the ground that prior permission from the Director of School Education was not obtained.

¶21

5.This Court has held in a catena of decisions that such prior permission need not be obtained. Therefore, the impugned order stands quashed. The first respondent is therefore directed to approve the petitioner's appointment as Office Assistant in the second respondent school with effect from 03.01.2018 . The first respondent is also directed to disburse grant in aid towards salary and other benefits immediately without any delay.

¶22

6.The Writ Petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(AD-II) /True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The District Educational Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶28

+1CC to Mr.E.V.N.Siva, Advocate, SR.No. 53783 +1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No.54327

¶29

ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).No.2377 of 2018 08.03.2018

¶30

tsg

¶31

AM/PM PN/SAR 4/09.03.2018/2P/4C

¶32

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

S.Vasanthi v. the District Educational

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vasanthi 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

Thangathai, W/O.Rajagopal, Vs the District Collector,/Cum

Dr.R.Lakshmipathy Vs the Joint Commissioner of

Sivanesan, Vs Union of India, New Delhi

S.Vellaiammal, Vs the Commissioner

Tamil Mannan, Vs the District Collector

The Correspondent Vs the State of Tamil Nadu