Disposed

D.Elisa v. The Director

Madras HC23 Jul 2019WP/21054/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ under Article 226 seeking a Mandamus against the Director and Principal Secretary to take action against the fourth respondent, alleging age and qualification violations. The Court held the school falls under Matriculation School regulations, noting action was already initiated. The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to allow the fourth respondent an opportu

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed; fourth respondent to be given adequate opportunity to submit remarks on the representation dated 04.04.2019; directions to Chief Educational Officer, Chennai to proceed.

D.Elisa Vs The Director — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.07.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶5

Writ Petition No.21054 of 2019

D.Elisa

...Petitioner

The Director, Directorate of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006.

¶10

The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat Building, Chennai 600 009.

¶11

The School Committee of Seventh Day Adventists Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Rep.by its President, South East India Union of Seventh Day Adventists No.197, G.S.T.Road, Vandalur, Chennai 600 048.

¶12

S.Vedhanayagam Principal, Seventh Day Adventists Matriculation Higher Secondary School, No.16, Valliyammal Road, Vepery, Chennai 600 007. ...Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to take suitable action on the 4th respondent in continuing as a Principal of the third respondent as claimed in the petitioner representation date 04.04.2019 within a time bound period.

¶14

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

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Senthil Kumar for Mr.K.Mohana Murali For Respondents: No appearance

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

[Order was delivered by S.MANIKUMAR,J]

¶18

The petitioner has sought for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the directing the first and second respondents to take suitable action on the 4th respondent in continuing as a Principal of the third respondent as claimed in the petitioner representation date 04.04.2019 within a time bound period.

¶19

On the grounds inter alia, the petitioner has contended that the Seventh Day Adventists Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Vandalur, Chennai/third respondent is governed by Private Schools Regulation Act 1974. According to her, as per the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act 1974 and the rules framed there under, age limit for a Teacher and Principal is 58 years. The petitioner has contended that Vedhanayagam/fourth respondent, now Principal, Seventh Day Adventists Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Vepery Chennai 600 007, is more than 60 years of age. That apart, he is not fully qualified as required for the post of Principal. Added further, the petitioner has stated that there is an FIR registered in crime No.256 u/s. 304 (A) IPC on the file of Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai, against fourth respondent and another is pending. The petitioner has sent a representation dated 04.04.2019 to the Director, Directorate of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai/first respondent and the Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat Building, Chennai/second respondent to take action. Contending further that no action is taken, instant writ petition has been filed for the relief as stated supra.

¶20

On this day, when the matter came up for admission, it is submitted by Mr.P.R.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of Mr.K.Mohana Murali, learned counsel on record, for the petitioner that on the basis of proceedings in R.C.No.1460/A3/2019 dated 14.06.2019 issued by the Director of Matriculation Schools, Chennai, the above said representation has been forwarded to the Chief Educational Officer, Chennai, who is not added as a party respondent in this writ petition. A copy of the Proceedings dated 14.06.2019 produced before this Court reads as follows:-

¶21

jkpH;ehL bkl;hpFnyrd; gs;spfs; ,af;Fehpd; bray;Kiwfs;. brd;id?6

¶22

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

¶23

e/f/vz; 1460 / m3 / 2019 ehs; /06/2019 bghUs; : g[fhh;- brd;id khtl;lk;. ntg;nghp. / S.D.A. bkl;hpFnyrd; nky;epiyg;gs;spj; jhshsh; kPJ bgwg;gl;l g[fhh; chpa eltof;iff;fhf mDg;g[jy; rhh;g[/

¶24

ghh;it 1/muR foj vz; 9047 /MS/ 2019-1 ehs; 15/04/2019 2/jpU/vyprh. madhtuk;. brd;id khtl;lk; vd;ghhpd; foj ehs; 04/04/2019/

¶25

ghh;itapy; fhQqk; g[fhh; kDtpy; brd;id khtl;lk;. ntg;nghp. S.D.A. bkl;hpFnyrd; nky;epiyg;gs;spj; jhshsh; kPJ g[fhh; kD bgwg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,g;g[fhhpd; kPJ chpa eltof;if nkw;bfhs;Sk; bghUl;L bgwg;gl;l kDthdJ , j;Jld; ,izj;J mDg;gyhfpwJ/

¶26

,izg;g[ - kDtpd; efy;. bkl;hpFnyrd; gs;spfs; ,af;Feh;

¶27

bgWeh; Kjd;ikf;fy;tp mYtyh;. brd;id/

¶28

efy; jpU/o/vyprh. j bg/njtuh$;. vz; 17 9. nfhapy; bjU. madhtuk;. brd;id 23

¶29

Though the petitioner has sought for the relief as stated supra Mr.P.R.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of Mr.K.Mohana Murali, learned counsel on record, for the petitioner submitted that in view of the subsequent development, directions be issued to the Chief Educational Officer, Chennai, to act as per the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1974 and to proceed further and thereafter, to submit a report to the Director of Matriculation School, Chennai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

Contention that the school comes under the jurisdiction of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulations Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder is not correct. Admittedly, the school falls under the purview of the code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools. Therefore, the Director of Matriculation Schools, Chennai has issued proceedings dated 14.06.2019, directing the Chief Educational Officer, Chennai to take action. In view of the above, we are of the view that

¶31

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

¶32

action on the representation of the petitioner has been taken. Chief Educational Officer, Chennai has to proceed. Adherence of principles of natural justice should be done. Therefore, it is made clear that the fourth respondent be given adequate opportunity to submit his remarks on the representation dated 04.04.2019.

¶33

6.With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed. No costs.

¶34

s/d-

¶35

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶36

True Copy

¶37

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶38

dpq

¶39

¶40

The Director, Directorate of School Education, DPI Campus,

¶41

Chennai 600 006.

¶42

The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat Building,

¶43

Chennai 600 009.

¶44

+1 CC to Mr.K.Mohana Murali, Advocate sr 63207.

¶45

Writ Petition No.21054 of 2019

¶46

KS(CO) SP(29/08/2019)

¶47

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

D.Elisa v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Elisa v. The Director

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

M.Karunakaran, Vs The District Collector

Lion.G.Devarajan Vs The Collector

Anna Nagar Western Extension Association, Vs Principal Secretary to Government

T.P.Gopalakrishnan Vs The District Collector

S.Ramasamy, S/o.Shanmugam, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Hareesh Kumar Vs The Director of Elementary Education