Dismissed

P. Dinesh Paul v. the District Educational Officer

Madras HC22 Jun 2023WA(MD)/418/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chief Justice Gangapurwala quashed the Writ Appeal. The court dismissed the appeal holding it was without merit because the appellant, for whom relaxation of teaching experience was sought, admitted lacking the mandatory T.E.T. qualification required for a Headmaster post. The court did not rule on the procedural issue of self-appointment or the power to relax experience.

What did the court decide?

None. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

P. Dinesh Paul Vs the District Educational Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.418 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.06.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.418 of 2023

P.Dinesh Paul

... Appellant

vs.

1.The District Education Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶11

2.The Block Education Officer, Madurai North Block, Madurai.

¶12

3.The Correspondent,

¶13

Manohara Middle School, Iyyanar Kovil 5^th Street, Sellur, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 09.12.2022, passed in W.P.(MD)No.4158 of 2020.

¶15

Prayer in WP(MD). 4158/ 2020 :

¶16

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings O.Mu.No.866/A1/2019 dated 27.11.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondent to grant relaxation of five years teaching experience and to approve the appointment of petitioner as Primary School Headmaster in the 3rd respondent School with all consequential service and monetary benefit.

¶17

For Appellant : Mr.K.Samidurai

¶18

For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader

¶19

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

¶20

1/2

¶21

W.A.(MD)No.418 of 2023

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

(Judgment of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶24

The appellant assails the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition.

¶25

The appellant had filed the Writ Petition challenging the order refusing to approve him as a Headmaster. The appellant further sought direction to grant relaxation of five years teaching experience.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is entitled for relaxation of five years. The appointment of the appellant was within the sanctioned post as per the fixation of staff strength. The powers are there to relax the condition of five years teaching experience.

¶27

Learned Single Judge observed that the appellant was working as Secretary of the said Institution and he issued appointment order to himself.

¶28

Be that as it may, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant does not possess T.E.T. Qualification. The same is mandatory, as he claims to be a Headmaster of the Primary School.

¶29

In the light of that, the Writ Appeal sans merit. As such, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

¶30

Assistant Registrar(T & P)

¶31

// True Copy //

¶32

/07/2023 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶33

smn2

¶34

¶35

1.The District Education Officer,

¶36

Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Block Education Officer, Madurai North Block,Madurai.

¶37

+1 CC to M/s.K.SAMIDURAI, Advocate ( SR-30426[F] dated 23/06/2023 )

¶38

W.A(MD)No.418 of 2023 DATED : 22.06.2023

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis MK/11.07.2023 2P 4C

¶40

2/2

P. Dinesh Paul v. the District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Dinesh Paul v. the District Educational Officer

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

S.M.Nasar Vs Pandia Rajan K

Dr. Mohans Diabetes Specialities Centre Pvt.Ltd., Vs a.S.Thulasisah

P.Kuppammal Vs S.Subramanian

Azeez Ahamed Vs The District Collector

Sivaranjani .M Vs The District Collector

Muthuramalingam Vs The Authorized Officer