Disposed

K.Mathivanan, v. The Secretary to the Government

Madras HC15 Feb 2022WP/30388/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a rejection order regarding his appointment as a teacher in an aided school, arguing documents were missing. The Court held the order was not a final rejection but a directive to submit details. It directed the authorities to verify his service, conduct an enquiry if needed, and grant salary arrears if eligible.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit details by 30.04.2022; authorities to verify appointment, conduct enquiry if unsatisfied, and pay arrears if eligible.

K.Mathivanan, Vs The Secretary to the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.02.2022

¶3

CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

W.P.NO.30388 OF 2019

K.Mathivanan

... Petitioner

-vs-

The Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6.

¶9

The District Educational Officer, Nagappattinam, Nagappattinam District.

¶10

The Block Educational Officer, Keezhaiyur, Keezhvelur Taluk, Nagappattinam District. 5. The Secretary, Aided Elementary School, Kameswaram West, Middle Street, Prathabharamapuram, Keezhvelur Taluk, Nagappattinam District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in relates to the rejection order passed by the Fourth Respondent in Oo.Mu.No.1025/A1/2019 dated 27.09.2019 and quash the same and consequently, direct the

¶12

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

¶13

Respondents to approve the appointment of the Petitioner from 10.04.2019 along with all attendant and monitory benefits.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Conscious Ilango for Mr.V.Kasinatha Bharathi

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu Additional Government Pleader (Education) (for R1 to R4)

¶16

Mr.C.Prabakaran (for R5)

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard Mr. S.Conscious Ilango, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu, Learned Additional Government Pleader (Education) appearing for the First to Fourth Respondents and Mr. C.Prabakaran, Learned Counsel for the Fifth Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶19

The Fifth Respondent is a recognized private school receiving grant-in-aid from the Government of Tamil Nadu for payment of salary to its teachers. The Petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the school of the Fifth Respondent and when the same was sent for approval to the Third and Fourth Respondents, it was returned by Proceedings in O. Mu No. 1025/A1/2019 dated 16.08.2019 by the Fourth Respondent pointing out the failure to enclose certain necessary documents, which is assailed in this Writ Petition.

¶20

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that it is not an order of rejection, but it only requires certain documents to be submitted by the Fifth Respondent to process the application for approval of the appointment of the Petitioner. As such, it is incumbent upon the Fifth Respondent to furnish the required details. Learned Counsel for the Fifth Respondent states that the aforesaid requirements would be submitted by the Fifth Respondent by 30.04.2022 to the concerned authority.

¶21

Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made, this Court without expressing any view on the correctness or entitlement of the claim made by the Petitioner, passes the following order:-

¶22

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

¶23

(i) On receipt of the said requirements from the Fifth Respondent, the concerned authority shall immediately examine the proposal for approval of appointment of the Petitioner in the School of the Fifth Respondent including ascertaining as to whether the Petitioner had actually worked in the School of the Fifth Respondent during the relevant period so as to be entitled to the monetary benefits claimed;

¶24

(ii) in the event of the concerned authority not being satisfied with the compliance of such requirements, an enquiry shall be conducted affording full opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner and the Fifth Respondent to explain their position in that regard and the concerned authority shall pass reasoned orders dealing with each of the contentions raised on merits and in accordance with law and communicate the decision taken to the parties under written acknowledgment;

¶25

(iii) if the Petitioner is entitled to the approval of appointment, it shall be ensured that the eligible amount of arrears of salary is paid within 30 days from the date of passing of that order, apart from the monthly salary for on the due dates for future periods; and

¶26

(iv) the concerned authority shall file report of compliance in that regard before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court;

¶27

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed on the aforesaid terms. No costs.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶30

//True Copy//

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

¶33

¶34

The Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George,

¶35

Chennai – 9.

¶36

The Director of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam,

¶37

Chennai-6.

¶38

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

¶39

The District Educational Officer, Nagappattinam, Nagappattinam District.

¶40

The Block Educational Officer, Keezhaiyur, Keezhvelur Taluk, Nagappattinam District.

¶41

Copy to

¶42

The Registrar (Judicial), Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104.

¶43

+1cc to M/s.Ln.V.Kasinatha Bharathi, Advocate, S.R.No.9455

¶44

W.P.No.30388 of 2019

¶45

BR(CO) RLP(05/04/2022)

¶46

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

K.Mathivanan, v. The Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mathivanan, v. The Secretary to the Government

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

V.Rajesh, S/o.K.N.Varadhan Vs The District Elementary

T.S.Jayalakshmi Vs The Presiding Officer

M/s P.K.P Tex Unit-Ii Vs The Joint Commissioner of

The Management Vs The Special Deputy

N.Shanmugam, Vs The Management, rep.by its

R.Vanitha Vs The Secretary to the Government