A contempt petition challenging the respondents for not complying with the operation order dated 08.06.2018. The court held that the petitioner was not aggrieved by the respondent's proceedings and dismissed the contempt petition.
Contempt petition dismissed with liberty to challenge any future grievance in a proper court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Cont.P.(MD).No.1090 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH Cont.P.(MD).No.1090 of 2019
in W.P.(MD).No.11936 of 2018
R.Banupriya
... Petitioner
vs.
1.Mrs.Vasantha,
District Elementary Educational Officer,
Now District Educational Officer, Tuticorin District.
Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Now Block Educational Officer,Karungulam,
Tuticorin District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents for their wilful deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.11936 of 2018, dated 08.06.2018.
Prayer in WP(MD). 11936/ 2018 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.No. 512/A5/2018 dated 10.04.2018 and quash the same and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the date of appointment i.e., 18.08.2017 with all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Paneerselvam
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The present petition is filed alleging contempt as against order dated 08.06.2018. The prayer sought for by the petitioner was to quash the order passed by the District Elementary Educational Officer and consequential direction sought for approval of appointment of the petitioner from the date of her appointment ie., on 18.08.2017.
“ 16.In this case, the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent citing the said reason of nondeployment of excess Teachers by the same Management to some other Schools, which cannot be a reason to reject the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ approval of the appointment of the petitioner, as the
1/3
Cont.P.(MD).No.1090 of 2019
petitioner has been appointed in a sanctioned vacancy of the third respondent School and no other infirmity has been found by the authorities for rejecting approval for such appointment made to the petitioner.
17.In view of the above, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned order does not have any acceptable reason and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for reconsideration, where the first respondent must take into account the staff sanctioned strength of the third respondent School and other requirements viz., qualification, etc., for the purpose of giving approval to the petitioner's appointment and the reason of nondeployment of excess Teachers by the third respondent School Management in respect of some other School shall no longer be a reason to be cited by the authorities for taking a decision regarding approval of the petitioner's appointment.
18.The needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the first respondent and an order to that effect shall be passed by him within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
2/3
Cont.P.(MD).No.1090 of 2019
the discussion in the preceding paragraph that what has been ordered by the learned Judge is a reconsideration of the matter and not the grant of approval per se.
Assistant Registrar (AS)
// True Copy //
akv
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.Mrs.Vasantha,
District Elementary Educational Officer, Now District Educational Officer, Tuticorin District.
2.Mrs.Balasundari, Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Now Block Educational Officer, Karungulam,
Tuticorin District.
+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-772[F] dated 07/01/2022 )
ORDER MADE IN Cont.P.(MD).No.1090 of 2019 06.01.2022
MK/28.01.2022/3P/4C
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petitioners challenges to the compliance of the operation order
R.Banupriya
Mrs. Vasantha
Mrs. Balasundari
Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth
Dr. Justice F. Immanuel Raj K.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
