Disposed

Amutha.v.B v. The Director of Elementary Education

Madras HC9 Nov 2022WP(MD)/3159/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, overriding a previous order that had been executed, directing the respondent to consider natural justice principles before finalizing her reversion from the post of Middle School Headmistress.

What did the court decide?

The fourth respondent is directed to issue a formal notice to the writ petitioner to show cause why the order of reversion should not be sustained within two weeks.

Amutha.v.B Vs The Director of Elementary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.3159 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.3159 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.2506 & 2507 of 2021

¶7

V.B.Amutha ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus,

¶10

Chennai – 6.

¶11

2.The Joint Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus,

¶12

Chennai – 6.

¶13

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Theni District.

¶14

4.The District Educational Officer, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

¶15

5.The Block Development Officer, Uthamapalayam,

¶16

Theni District.

¶17

6.M.S.Sekar ... Respondents

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

1/6

¶20

W.P(MD)No.3159 of 2021

¶21

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 pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.2810-Aa2-2020 dated 27.01.2021 on the file of the fourth respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction forbearing the fourth respondent from reverting the petitioner from the post of Middle School Headmaster without following principles of natural justice and without considering the seniority of the petitioner.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheeskumar Additional Government Pleader for R.1 to R.5

¶24

P.M.Vishnuvarthanan for R.6

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶27

The writ petitioner questions her reversion from the post of Middle

¶28

School Headmistress. The impugned order dated 27.01.2021 purports to implement the order dated 29.11.2019 made in W.P(MD)No.9499 of 2012 filed

¶29

by the sixth respondent herein. The sixth respondent herein was in the promotion panel for the post of Middle School Headmaster in the year 2012 itself. He was overlooked and one S.A.Vetriselvan was promoted. Challenging the same, M.S.Sekar / the sixth respondent herein filed the said writ petition.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

2/6

¶32

W.P(MD)No.3159 of 2021

¶33

During the pendency of the said writ petition, S.A.Vetriselvan passed away. However, after a careful consideration of the entire material on record, this Court concluded that M.S.Sekar was senior to S.A.Vetriselvan and that he was wrongfully overlooked. The following order was passed:

¶34

“9.In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the third respondent, dated 22.06.2012 is set aside and the official respondents are directed to promote the petitioner as Middle School Headmaster based on the counselling conducted on 27.06.2012 and treat the petitioner as senior to the fourth respondent. Since the fourth respondent is no more, the petitioner may also be posted in his place, if the post is still vacant or any other vacant place and treat the petitioner as senior to the fourth respondent, even in the promotional post, while preparing the seniority list. The petitioner is also entitled to all monetary benefits and the entire exercise shall be done by the official respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

¶35

The aforesaid order has become final and has not been questioned. The Department was duty bound to implead the said order and promote M.S.Sekar

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

3/6

¶38

W.P(MD)No.3159 of 2021

¶39

to the said post. While doing so, the writ petitioner was relieved and reverted from her post. This was done without putting the writ petitioner on notice. If the Department had put the writ petitioner on notice, the writ petitioner could have even established that while implementing the order of this Court, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. A proper exercise as to who is really junior, could have been undertaken. If the petitioner / V.B.Amutha had demonstrated that some other person was junior to her, then that person would have been the casualty. Such an opportunity was never given to the writ petitioner.

¶40

In this view of the matter, the order of reversion prima facie requires interference. Since the writ petitioner had been relieved and the sixth respondent had assumed charge as Middle School Headmaster in the place of writ petitioner and more than 18 months have lapsed, I do not want to direct restoration. Instead, the fourth respondent is directed to issue formal notice to the writ petitioner calling upon her to show cause as to why the order of reversion should not be sustained. This notice will be given within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the writ petitioner to demonstrate that she should not be reverted. After considering all the materials to be placed by the writ petitioner, a reasoned order will be passed by the fourth respondent. The right of the writ petitioner will abide by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶41

W.P(MD)No.3159 of 2021

¶42

outcome of the said proceedings. Such an order will be passed within a period

¶43

of four weeks after the receipt of explanation from the writ petitioner.

¶44

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶45

09.11.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No mga

¶46

¶47

1.The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, Chennai – 6.

¶48

2.The Joint Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, Chennai – 6.

¶49

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Theni District.

¶50

4.The District Educational Officer, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

¶51

5.The Block Development Officer, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

5/6

¶54

W.P(MD)No.3159 of 2021

¶55

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶56

mga

¶57

W.P(MD)No.3159 of 2021

¶58

09.11.2022

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

6/6

Amutha.v.B v. The Director of Elementary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amutha.v.B v. The Director of Elementary Education

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

P. Manoharan Vs State Bank of India

Shanthakumar.K.J. Vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest

B.Lakshmi, Vs the Alagappa University

Dhakshinamurthy.L Vs The Managing Director

Sakthivel.R Vs the Commissioner of Revenue Administration and Disaster Management

Kiruba Joseph Vs the State of Tamil Nadu