Allowed

H.Janakiraman v. the Director of School

Madras HC16 Mar 2018WP(MD)/3027/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's appointment as Junior Assistant. The court held prior higher-level permission was unnecessary for a sanctioned post and quashed the rejection order, directing approval of appointment and salary.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed and the second respondent was directed to approve the petitioner's appointment as Junior Assistant and release salary grant.

H.Janakiraman Vs the Director of School — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P (MD)No.3027 of 2018

H.Janakiraman

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Director of School Education (Secondary),

¶11

College Road, Chennai – 6.

¶12

The District Educational Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶13

The Secretary, S.C.G.R. Higher Secondary School, Amaravathipudur – 630 301, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected with the impugned order passed by the second respondent in O.Mu.No.752/A3/2018 dated 31.01.2018 and quash the same and directing the second respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the third respondent school namely, S.C.G.R Higher Secondary School, Amaravathipudur-630 301, Sivagangai District with all consequential monetary benefits and salary with effect from 25.10.2017.

¶15

For petitioner : Mr.K.K.Kannan

¶16

For respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy,

¶17

Special Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶20

2.The petitioner was appointed in the third respondent school as Junior Assistant. It is not in dispute that the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointment is in respect of a sanctioned post. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is having requisite qualifications for

¶21

¶22

being so appointed. But, the second respondent has declined to accord approval on the ground that prior permission of the first respondent was not obtained.

¶23

3.This Court has consistently held that such prior permission

¶24

need not be obtained. The reason set out in the impugned order is unsustainable in law. Therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition is quashed. The second respondent is directed to approve the petitioner's appointment as Junior Assistant in the third respondent school with effect from the date of his appointment and release the grant in aid towards the salary without any delay.

¶25

4.This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

The Director of School Education (Secondary),

¶32

College Road, Chennai – 6.

¶33

The District Educational Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶34

- 1 cc TO Mr.K.K.Kannan , Advocate in SR No. 56159

¶35

- 1 cc TO The Special Government Pleader in SR No. 56480

¶36

SKM

¶37

AE/SKN RSK/SAR4/24.05.2018/2P/5C

¶38

W.P (MD)No.3027 of 2018 16.03.2018

¶39

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

H.Janakiraman v. the Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Janakiraman v. the 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

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

J.Sheela Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu