Dismissed

Kalaivanan.S v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC10 Aug 2021WP(MD)/13904/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired teacher, challenged the refusal to recall his application for a mandatory farewell function and sought compensation under SC/ST Atrocities Rules. The Court held that the issue was already addressed in a communication from the respondents denying such orders, leaving no basis for the writ petition which was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without order as to costs.

Kalaivanan.S Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.13904 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.08.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.(MD)No.13904 of 2021

¶4

S.Kalaivanan ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

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

¶7

2.The Director,

¶8

School Education Department, DPI Campus, Chennai – 600 006.

¶9

3.The Chief District Educational Officer, Chief Educational Officer Office, SIB South Road, Veppamoodu,

¶10

Nagarcoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶11

4.The District Educational Officer, Nagarcoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶12

5.The Principal, Nallur Government High School, Suchintharam, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to disposed petitioner's representation dated 18.06.2021 on merits and to direct the respondents to conduct a farewell courtesy function for the petitioner within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and also direct the respondents to provide the mandatory compensation under Rule 15 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 and the Amended Rules, 2016 to the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Vijay Antony For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj, Counsel for State R1 to R5

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner complains of the conduct of a farewell function by the fifth respondent-School and the intentional refusal of the fifth respondent to invite the petitioner for such farewell https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/3

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.13904 of 2021

¶19

function.

¶20

2.The petitioner states that he worked as a Tamil Teacher in the fifth respondent-School for more than 11 years until his superannuation on 31.05.2015. According to the petitioner, a farewell function is held every year and the expenses in connection therewith are borne from and out of Government funds. However, the petitioner alleges that he was not invited for the farewell function. Consequently, he submitted a RTI application on 13.04.2016 and pursuant to the order issued by the State Commission on 25.05.2019, he submitted a representation to the respondents on 18.06.2021. The present writ petition is filed in these facts and circumstances.

¶21

3.Mr.R.Subbaraj, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. He points out that by communication dated 05.07.2021, the fourth respondent herein informed the petitioner that there are no Government orders or guidelines in respect of the conduct of farewell functions and, therefore, it is not possible to take any further action on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 18.06.2021. As such, learned counsel for the State submits that the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of by the communication dated 05.07.2021.

¶22

4.The relief claimed by the petitioner pertains to a farewell function conducted in the year 2015. By the communication dated 05.07.2021, the fourth respondent has stated categorically that there are no Government orders or guidelines in respect of the conduct of such farewell functions. This order has been issued in response to the petitioner's representation dated 18.06.2021. Consequently, the relief claimed in the present writ petition, namely, for disposal of the representation dated 18.06.2021, has already been addressed by the communication dated 05.07.2021. As such, nothing further survives of the present writ petition.

¶23

5.Consequently, W.P(MD).No.13904 of 2021 is disposed of with the above observations but without any order as to costs.

¶24

Assistant Registrar (CS I)

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

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

¶28

2/3

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.13904 of 2021

¶30

To:

¶31

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, St.Fort George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director, School Education Department, DPI Campus, Chennai – 600 006. 3.The Chief District Educational Officer, Chief Educational Officer Office, SIB South Road, Veppamoodu, Nagarcoil, Kanyakumari District. 4.The District Educational Officer, Nagarcoil, Kanyakumari District. 5.The Principal, Nallur Government High School, Suchintharam, Kanyakumari District. +1 CC to M/s.Special Government Pleader ( SR-25902[F] dated 11/08/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.D.VIJAY ANTONY, Advocate (SR-25854[F] dated 11/08/2021) W.P.(MD)No.13904 of 2021 10.08.2021 RS (23.08.2021) 3P 8C

¶32

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

¶33

3/3

Kalaivanan.S v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalaivanan.S v. the Government of Tamilnadu

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

Savithiri Alias Veeralakshmi.T Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director

Tamilselvan Vs the Deputy Collector / the Regional Manmager

Kavitha.R Vs the Director

Arunachalam Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Saleem Basha Vs the Joint Commissioner

Chitra.a Vs the Joint Director