Dismissed

V. Kala, v. District Educational Officer

Madras HC12 Oct 2020WP(MD)/5581/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the appointment of another person as Record Clerk in a private school via writ petition. The Court held that statutory remedies under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 were not exhausted. Rejected facts-based scrutiny of irregularities in High Court. Dismissed petition noting excessive delay. No costs. Liberty to approach competent authorities for appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is dismissed in limine. Petitioner is at liberty to approach competent authorities by filing an appeal.

V. Kala, Vs District Educational Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.5581 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12 .10.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD)No.5581 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2012

V.Kala

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Educational Officer,

¶10

Se.Va.Govt.Higher Secondary School Campus,

¶11

Tuticorin.

¶12

2.The Secretary,

¶13

Hindu Higher Secondary School,

¶14

Alwarthirunageri, Tuticorin District.

¶15

3.S.Esakki ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in the proceedings of the Secretary, Hindu Higher Secondary School, Alwarthirunageri, Tuticorin, dated 21.04.2011, on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, ultravires and unconstitutional and inconsequence direct the 2^nd respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of record clerk of the 2^nd respondent school (Hindu Higher Secondary School', Alwarthirunageri).

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh For R1 : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah Addl.Govt.Pleader For R2 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar For M/s.Ajmal Associates For R3 : Mr.V.George Raja

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is to quash the order dated 21.04.2011, issued by the 2^nd respondent, appointing the 3^rd respondent, as Record Clerk, in the 2^nd respondent school.

¶20

The 3^rd respondent was appointed with effect from 21.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and it is brought to the notice of this Court that the appointment

¶21

1/3

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.5581 of 2012

¶23

was approved by the competent educational authorities. The 3^rd respondent is working now as an approved staff of the 2^nd respondent school for many years and therefore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent states that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that there were many irregularities committed during the selection and appointment. The petitioner was fully qualified for appointment to the post of Record Clerk. The roster system was not followed and therefore, the appointment order passed by the 2^nd respondent is to be quashed.

¶25

Even in such case, the 2^nd respondent Secretary of the School issued the order of appointment. A statutory remedy is provided under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. Thus, the petitioner would have exhausted the statutory remedy provided under the Act. With reference to the recruitment Rules, the manner in which the 3^rd respondent was appointed as well as the procedures followed ought to be established through the documents as well as by examining the witnesses. The enquiry is to be conducted with reference to the procedures followed for appointment of the 3^rd respondent. However, such an enquiry cannot be conducted by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the petitioner has to exhaust the statutory remedy provided under the Act, by filing an appeal before the competent authorities.

¶26

In the present case, the petitioner instead of approaching the competent authority for enquiry, filed the writ petition and such question of facts and circumstances cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. Under these circumstances, the relief as such sought for deserves no merits consideration at this length of time. Even at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was aged about 31 years now he would be around 46 years. The writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authorities by filing an appeal, if the cause exists as of now. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CRL SIDE)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

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

¶31

2/3

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.5581 of 2012

¶33

¶34

The District Educational Officer, Se.Va.Govt.Higher Secondary School Campus, Tuticorin.

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-19881[F] dated 13/10/2020 )

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.5581 of 2012 12.10.2020

¶37

SRK(CO) TR(21.10.2020) 3P 3C

¶38

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

¶39

3/3

V. Kala, v. District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Kala, v. District Educational Officer

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

P. Karuppaiah, Vs the Secretary to the Govt.

D. Kumarasamy Vs the Director of Public Health

B.Sukumar, Vs the General Manager

S. Abul Kalam Asad Vs Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation

A.Karuppiah Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

R. Rajakumari, Vs the Principal Secretary to