Dismissed

The Chief Educational Officer v. K.Alima Banu

Madras HC29 Nov 2021WA(MD)/2129/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal challenging the Writ Court's order directing officials to reconsider the appointment of a teacher, the High Court held that there was no reason to entertain the appeal. The Court dismissed it and directed the appellants to comply with the earlier Writ Court order, noting their failure to follow directions despite multiple reminders.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; direction to comply with the earlier order passed by the Writ Court in the lower writ petition; no costs.

The Chief Educational Officer Vs K.Alima Banu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.2129 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.11.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE TMT.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA and THE HONOURABLE THIRU.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.A(MD)No.2129 of 2021 and CMP(MD)No.9939 of 2021

¶7

1)The Chief Educational Officer, Trichirappalli.

¶8

2)The District Educational Officer, Trichirappalli. ... Appellants/Respondents 1 & 2

¶9

vs.

¶10

1)K.Alima Banu ... 1^st Respondent/Writ Petitioner

¶11

2)The Correspondent, Kajamiya Higher Secondary School, Kajamiya Nagar, Trichirappalli. ... 2

¶12

... 2^nd Respondent/3^rd Respondent

¶13

Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 14.09.2020 made in W.P(MD)No.11628 of 2020.

¶14

Prayer in WP(MD). 11628/ 2020 :

¶15

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.No.8986/A4/A2/2019 dated 16.06.2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as P.G.Assistant (History) with effect from 03.06.2019 with all attended benefits.

¶16

For Appellants : Mr.P.Subbaraj

¶17

Special Government Pleader For R1 : Mr.V.Paneer Selvam

¶18

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

¶19

1/3

¶20

W.A(MD)No.2129 of 2021

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(Judgment of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. )

¶23

The writ appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P (MD)No.11628 of 2020 dated 14.09.2020, wherein, a common order was passed in a batch of writ petitions.

¶24

The school, which is the 3^rd respondent in the writ petition, had vacancies with respect to teaching and non teaching posts which were sanctioned, in which, the writ petitioners were appointed. When the approval was sent by the school to the appellants, they rejected the same, on three grounds namely,

¶25

i) The Educational Agency should have filed the Form VII before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

¶26

ii) It is to be clarified that there are no cases pending before the Court with respect to the appointment of the members of the Management.

¶27

iii) W.P(MD)No.20895 of 2013 filed by the school should be withdrawn.

¶28

It was made clear before the Writ Court itself that W.P(MD) No.20895 of 2013 was withdrawn as early as on 10.08.2018. Regarding the pendency of any case, excepting the present case, no other case was pending, was also clarified to the appellants. In spite of the same, the approval was rejected. Hence, the learned Judge has taken note of the facts and only remitted the matter back to the appellants herein, directing them to reconsider the proposal sent by the school, in respect of the appointment made to each of the writ petitioners in the respondent's school. The officials were also directed to verify whether the appointment of the writ petitioners were in sanctioned vacancy alone, along with the other details and granted eight weeks time.

¶29

Even after considerable time, the order was not complied with. Hence, the writ petitioners had filed contempt petition in Cont.P(MD)No.1335 of 2021. In the meanwhile, by proceedings in O.Mu.No.4737/A2/2020, dated 24.03.2021, the 2^nd appellant namely, the District Educational Officer has passed an order without considering the direction given by the Writ Court, on the ground that the educational agency was not in place as per the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 2018.

¶30

When the contempt petition was taken up for hearing, the same learned Judge, who passed the order in the writ petitions, holding that prima facie, the order dated 24.03.2021, was passed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

2/3

¶32

W.A(MD)No.2129 of 2021

¶33

without application of mind, directed the officials to pass a fresh order, to comply with the earlier order passed in the writ petition. Even after that, there was no compliance. Hence, on 26.10.2021, statutory notice was issued to the respondents. In the above said circumstances, the present writ appeal was filed by the appellants.

¶34

The Writ Court while passing the order in the writ petitions, and also while dealing with the contempt petition, had remanded the matter back to the officials to re-consider the proposals given, verify the details of the writ petitioners and then pass orders. However, unmindful of the said directions given, the appellants, in particular, the 2^nd appellant has passed the order on 24.03.2021. In such circumstances, we see no reason to entertain this appeal and the same is dismissed with the direction to comply with the earlier order passed by the Writ Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶36

// True Copy //

¶37

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶38

¶39

1)The Chief Educational Officer, Trichirappalli.

¶40

2)The District Educational Officer, Trichirappalli.

¶41

+1 CC to M/s.V.PANNEERSELAVM, Advocate (SR-36853[F] dated 01/12/2021)

¶42

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-36479[F] dated 30/11/2021 )

¶43

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A(MD)No.2129 of 2021 DATED : 29.11.2021

¶44

NSN(CO)

¶45

GC(08.12.2021) 3P 5C

¶46

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

¶47

3/3

The Chief Educational Officer v. K.Alima Banu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Educational Officer v. K.Alima Banu

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

Karuppaiya Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Boopathy.S Vs the Inquiry Officer

S.Rajaji Alias Rajamani, Vs the Chief Engineer (Distribution)

Sirajudin Vs the Commissioner of Municipal Administration

Eeswaran Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Felix Raja.J Vs the District Collector