Disposed

R.Kasimuthuveerapandian, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC25 Jul 2019WP(MD)/16347/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioners sought to quash appointments of school staff alleged to be fraudulent based on bogus committee minutes. The Court held that disputed facts requiring evidence verification cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. An order was dismissed with a direction to conduct an enquiry by the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of; parties directed to file appeal before the Chief Educational Officer for a local enquiry.

R.Kasimuthuveerapandian, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.07.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.16347 of 2012 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2012

¶7

1.R.Kasimuthuveerapandian

¶8

2.Sakthi Amaravathi

¶9

3.Kalyani

4.R.Gnanasambanthan

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶14

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶15

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District.

¶16

4.The District Educational officer, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

¶17

5.K.Thangammalpuram Hindu Ganapathi Kasinathan High School, K.Thangammalpuram, Thoothukudi District. Represented by its Secretary.

¶18

6.R.Parthiban

¶19

7.R.Alaguraj

¶20

8.K.Perumalsami ... Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned fabricated Minutes of the School Committee dated 25.10.2012 of the fifth respondent-school and the subsequent created appointment orders of the 7^th and 8^th respondents as Physical Education Teacher and BT Assistant (Science) respectively issued by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the 6^th respondent in Proceedings No.Nil dated 25.10.2012 and the consequential approval granted by the 4^th respondent in

¶22

¶23

Na.Ka.No.4601/A2/2013, dated 16.08.2013 for the alleged appointment of the 7^th respondent as Physical Education Teacher in the 5^th respondent School, Quash the same.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.E.V.N.Siva, For R1 to R4 : Mrs.S.Srimathy, Special Government Pleader For R5, R7 & R8 : Mr.P.Muthuvel

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to quash the appointment orders of the respondents 7 & 8 as Physical Education Teacher and BT Assistant (Science) respectively issued by the sixth respondent and the consequential approval granted by the fourth respondent in proceedings, dated 16.08.2013.

¶27

2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners states that the respondents 7 & 8 were appointed fraudulently. The learned counsel for the petitioners further states that the appointments were made based on the bogus School Committee Minute Book and therefore, the appointments of the respondents 7 & 8 are to be declared as null and void. Based on the fraudulent resolution of the School Committee, the appointments of the respondents 7 & 8 were also approved by the competent authority.

¶28

3.However, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent made a submission that no approval was granted to the eighth respondent and this apart, the approval was granted based on the records produced by the School, properly. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent further states that there was no irregularity in the matter of appointments as well as grant of approval.

¶29

4.This Court is of the considered opinion that such a disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings. In respect of such issues, verification of original documents as well as adducing of evidences are required. Such an exercise is to be done only by conducting an enquiry by the competent authority. Thus, the writ Court cannot adjudicate such issues by verifying the documents and by adducing evidences.

¶30

This being the facts and circumstances, the writ petitioners are at liberty to file an appeal to the third respondent/Chief Educational Officer, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of filing any such appeal before the third respondent, the third respondent is directed to issue notice to all the parties concerned and conducted an enquiry by affording an opportunity to all the parties by verifying the original records and by adducing the evidences, if required and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ twelve weeks, thereafter.

¶31

¶32

6.With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(AD-II)

¶33

/TRUE COPY/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

1.The Secretary, State of Tamilnadu, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District. 4.The District Educational officer, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District. +1 CC to M/s.ISAAC CHAMBERS, Advocate ( SR-77829[F] dated 26/07/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-77923[F] dated 26/07/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.E.V.N.SIVA, Advocate ( SR-77994[F] dated 26/07/2019 )

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.16347 of 2012 25.07.2019

¶38

¶39

JM/02.08.2019/3P-8C

¶40

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

R.Kasimuthuveerapandian, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kasimuthuveerapandian, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Sivakumar Vs the District Chief

N.P.Rajendran Vs the Inspector General of

C. Mohana Selvi, Vs the Director of Elementary

M. Baskaran, Vs the Secretary

K. Soundaramoorthi, Vs the Principal Secretary to the

M. Gnanaprakasam, Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport