Disposed

V.Mahalakshmi v. The Director of Elementary Education

Madras HC3 Sept 2019WP/12004/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Director of Elementary Education to dispose of a proposal for the appointment of a teacher by an aided school within eight weeks, addressing alleged inaction by the District Educational Officer.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the school's appointment proposal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy.

V.Mahalakshmi Vs The Director of Elementary Education — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :03.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.No.12004 of 2019

V. Mahalakshmi

..Petitioner

vs 1. The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai- 600 006.

¶9

The District Educational Officer, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District

¶10

The Block Educational Officer, Chinnasalem, Villupuram District.

¶11

The Secretary, Azath Middle School, Mettupalayam, Chinnasalem Union, Chinnasalem Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ directing the respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appointment of petitioner in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4^th respondent School from the date of appointment on 17.10.2018 with all consequential and other attendant benefits, by considering the proposal forwarded by the 4^th respondent school dated 31.10.2018, within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court and to pass further or other orders.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Nedunchezhiyan For Respondents : Mr. A. Rajaperumal, Additional Government Pleader

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner qualified with Diploma in Teacher Education (D.T.Ed.,) as well as M.A., and B,Ed., and eligible for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and Assistant Teacher. While he deployed for the appointment in the field of education, the 4^th respondent is a Religious Minority Institution, receiving grant-in-aid from State Government and it is a Government Aided School. The 4^th respondent appointed the petitioner after the retirement of incumbent on 31.05.2018 in the existing vacancy. Immediately after the appointment order, the petitioner joined the School on same day i.e., 17.10.2018. Subsequently the School Management has forwarded proposal to the 2^nd respondent viz., DEO, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District on 31.10.2018 with requisite documents. Further, the proposal forwarded by the 3^rd respondent school dated 31.10.2018 has also forwarded by the 2^nd respondent to the 1^st respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1087/A1/2018 dated 26.11.2018 seeking approval. However till date approval was not considered by the second respondent as against the inaction the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court may issue direction to the second respondent to pass orders on the proposal sent by the school management dated 30.10.2018 which was forwarded by the 3rd respondent on 31.10.2018 and 2^nd respondent on 26.11.2018.

¶19

The learned counsel for the respondent concedes with the limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for considering the proposal forwarded by the second respondent to the 1^st respondent in accordance with law.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to issue direction to the 1^st respondent to dispose of the proposal of the school management forwarded by the second respondent in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶21

s/dAssistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶22

True Copy

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶24

mrn

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai- 600 006. 2. The District Educational Officer, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District 3. The Block Educational Officer, Chinnasalem, Villupuram District. 4. The Secretary, Azath Middle School, Mettupalayam, Chinnasalem Union, Chinnasalem Taluk, Villupuram District. +1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 76886. +1 CC to Mr.G. Sankaran, Advocate sr 76391. W.P.No.12004 of 2019 RSI(CO) SP(03/10/2019)

¶28

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

V.Mahalakshmi v. The Director of Elementary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Mahalakshmi v. The Director of Elementary Education

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

Linghiah Vs the Secretary

M/S.Opg Power Generation Vs State of Tamilnadu

C.Duraisamy, Vs the Superintendent Engineer

P.Shanmuga Perumal Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

V.suresh Vs State of Tamil Nadu

K.Nagarajan Vs Government of Tamil Nadu