Allowed

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

Madras HC16 Mar 2018WP(MD)/2540/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed the temporary promotion of one respondent as Record Clerk without considering a qualified, senior in-service petitioner. The court directed the school to conduct a fresh selection complying with the relevant rules within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conduct a fresh selection for the post of Record Clerk considering the petitioner's case within eight weeks.

M.Vijay, S/O.Muthusamy, Vs the Joint Director… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.03.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶4

W.P (MD)No.2540 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.2750 of 2018

M.Vijay

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary),

¶9

College Road, Chennai.

¶10

2.The District Educational Officer, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶11

3.The Correspondent, ST.Philomena's Girl's Hr.Sec.School, Melaputhur, Trichy-1.

¶12

4.Dushman Bastin ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to promote the petitioner as a Record Clerk in the third respondent school on the basis of his seniority instead of the fourth respondent.

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.T.Vadivelan For respondents : Mr.K.Saravanan,

¶15

Government Advocate for R1&R2

¶16

No appearance for R3 & R4

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is working as an Office Assistant in the third respondent school for over 32 years. The Record Clerk post has fallen vacant. As per the relevant provisions, S.S.L.C., completed is the qualification prescribed for the post. The petitioner is possessing the said qualification. As per Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974, the petitioner being an in service candidate, is entitled to be considered for the said post.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974 states that the promotions shall be made

¶20

¶21

on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. It appears that the fourth respondent was temporarily promoted as Record Clerk without even considering the petitioner.

¶22

3.This is clearly illegal and contrary to Rule 15(4) of the

¶23

Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974. Therefore, the third respondent is directed to conduct a fresh selection for the post of Record Clerk and consider the case of the petitioner also. The selection process shall be conducted in terms of the above said Rule. The entire process shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

4.This writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

1.The Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary),

¶31

College Road, Chennai.

¶32

2.The District Educational Officer, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶33

3.The Correspondent,

¶34

ST.Philomena's Girl's Hr.Sec.School, Melaputhur, Trichy-1.

¶35

+1cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.56288

¶36

+1cc to Mr.T.Vadivelan, Advocate, SR.No.55833

¶37

SKM

¶38

RL/6C/2P/KK/SAR1/27/4/2018

¶39

W.P (MD)No.2540 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.2750 of 2018

¶40

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

¶41

16.03.2018

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Shiny Isabella Rahele, Vs the District Elementary

J.Sheela Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

H.Janakiraman Vs the Director of School