Disposed

G.Mariammal, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC18 Feb 2019WP(MD)/8256/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought transfer directions. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that the main prayer regarding transfer became infructuous. However, the court directed the official respondents to consider the petitioner's subsequent representation against the sixth respondent within eight weeks after providing a hearing opp

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed of, and a direction was issued for the official respondents to consider the petitioner's representation against the sixth respondent within eight weeks after a hearing.

G.Mariammal, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED:18.02.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P(MD) No.8256 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.6333 of 2017

¶6

G.Mariammal ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by it's Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai -9.

¶9

2.The Director of School Education, O/o.the Directorate of School Educational Office, DPI Compound, Chennai.

¶10

3.The Joint Director School Education(Personnel), O/o.the Joint Directorate School Educational Office, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. 4.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.the Chief Educational Office, Collectorate Campus, Virudhunagar District. 5.The District Educational Officer, O/o.the District Educational Office, Collectorate Campus, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

6.The Head Master, S.R.Government Higher Secondary School, Thiruthangal, Virudhunagar District.

¶12

7.M.Mangaladurai Head Master, S.R. Government Higher Secondary School, Thiruthangal, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

8.The Chief Educational Officer, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O/o.the Chief Educational Officer, Tallakulam, Madurai.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, direct the respondents to direct the fourth respondent to forward the petitioner's transfer application dated 21.04.2017 (which was sent to the 4th respondent through RPAD on 24.04.2017) to the seventh respondent so as to enable the petitioner to take part in the transfer counselling scheduled to be commenced on 15.05.2017 onwards and consequentially to direct the official respondents to take action against the sixth respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.04.2017 within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶16

For Petitioner :Mr.C.Venkatesh kumar for M/s. Ajmal Associates

¶17

For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy Special Government Pleader R.1 to R.5 and R.8

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to direct the fourth respondent to forward the petitioner's transfer application dated, 21.04.2017, to the seventh respondent so as to enable the petitioner to take part in the transfer counselling scheduled to be commenced on 15.05.2017 onwards and consequentially to direct the official respondents to take action against the sixth respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.04.2017, within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶20

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that due to efflux of time, the main prayer sought for by the petitioner has become infructuous. However, he seeks a direction to the official respondents to take action against the sixth respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.04.2017.

¶21

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that the official respondents would consider the representation of the petitioner within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

¶22

In such view of the matter, without going into the merits of the petitioner's case, the official respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.04.2017 with regard to certain allegations and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as all the parties concerned, including the sixth and seventh respondents herein. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar (P&A) // True Copy //

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar()

¶26

To 1.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai -9. 2.The Director of School Education, O/o.the Directorate of School Educational Office, DPI Compound, Chennai. 3.The Joint Director School Education(Personnel), O/o.the Joint Directorate School Educational Office, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. 4.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.the Chief Educational Office, Collectorate Campus, Virudhunagar District. 5.The District Educational Officer, O/o.the District Educational Office, Collectorate Campus, Virudhunagar District. 6.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.the Chief Educational Officer, Tallakulam, Madurai. +1. C.C. To M/s. Ajmal Associates Advocate SR.No.48175 +1. C.C. to Special Government Pleader SR.No.48282

¶27

W.P(MD) No.8256 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.6333 of 2017 18.02.2019 KK/SAR- /03.04.2019/3P/9C

¶28

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

G.Mariammal, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Mariammal, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Chandiran Vs the Director of School

R.Meena, D/O.Raja Vs the Chairman

K.R. Muthukumar Vs the Managing Director

M.Mahadevan, S/O.Manivel Vs the Chief Educational Officer

Parameshwari Vs the Secretary to the

C.Sasikala Vs the Managing Director