Allowed

P.Mary Pramila v. The General Manager

Madras HC29 Apr 2019WP/9508/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court directed the General Manager of a Heavy Vehicle Factory to issue a recommendation letter within two weeks to enable the admission of his son into the attached Kendriya Vidyalaya, dismissing the employer's procedural objection regarding the father's failure to produce an exhibition letter.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to issue an appropriate recommendation letter to the first petitioner within two weeks.

P.Mary Pramila Vs The General Manager — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 29.04.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶5

W.P.No.9508 of 2019

¶6

1.P.Mary Pramila

¶7

2.Merlin Jones (Minor) Rep by his mother and natural guardian P.Mary Pramila ... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The General Manager, Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi, Chennai – 600 054.

¶10

2.The Principal,

¶11

Kendriya Vidyalaya HVF Avadi, HVF Estate,

¶12

Avadi, Chennai – 600 062.

¶13

3.Arokiya Doss Simon ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to admit the second petitioner under the second respondent school.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan

¶16

For R1 : Mr.L.J.Vengatesh Central Govt. Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.M.Vaidyanathan O R D E R

¶17

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first and second respondents to admit the second petitioner, who is a minor, into the second respondent-school.

¶18

Admittedly, the second petitioner, namely, Merlin Jones, is born to the first petitioner and the third respondent. The third respondent is employed with the first respondent factory. Now, admission is sought for for the second petitioner in the

¶19

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

¶20

second respondent-school, as the child is eligible for admission in the said school, in view of the employment of his father. It is stated that due to some matrimonial discord, the third respondent is not producing the recommendation letter from the first respondent.

¶21

Be that as it may, it is only a recommendation letter that is required from the first respondent to certify that the third respondent, who is the father of the minor second petitioner, is employed with the Heavy Vehicle Factory/first respondent, which would enable the child to get admission into the second respondent-school.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent states that, if the letter issued by the first respondent is produced by the first petitioner, the child is automatically entitled for admission into the school. It is also stated that the school is willing to admit the child subject to the production of the said letter from the first respondent.

¶23

Hence, the first respondent is directed to consider the request of the first petitioner and issue an appropriate recommendation letter to the first petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to enable the minor child to be admitted in the second respondentschool.

¶24

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

rsi

¶28

¶29

1.The General Manager, Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi, Chennai – 600 054.

¶30

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

¶31

2.The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya HVF Avadi, HVF Estate, Avadi, Chennai – 600 062.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.M.Vaidhiyanathan, Advocate Sr.41748 +1cc to Mr.S.Saravanan, Advocate Sr.41738

¶33

+1cc to Mr.L.J.Venkatese, CGSC, Advocate Sr.41604

¶34

W.P.No.9508 of 2019

¶35

ssv[co] srg 18/06/2019

¶36

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

P.Mary Pramila v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Mary Pramila v. The General Manager

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

Irudaya Maria Joseph, Vs The District Elementary

K.Devaraju Vs The Registrar of Cooperative

Dr.Tmt. B.Pappa Selvam, Vs Director of Collegiate

Association of Management Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Mrs.a.Nabeela Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Sree Balaji Medical College Vs Government of India