Disposed

S. Ranganayaki, v. The Director of School

Madras HC21 Nov 2023WP/23736/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a writ petition regarding service regularization directs the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 07.10.2014 concerning her appointment as B.T. Assistant within eight weeks, without a substantive ruling on the merits at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 07.10.2014 within eight weeks and awarding costs.

S. Ranganayaki, Vs The Director of School — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.23736 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.11.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

W.P.No.23736 of 2015

S.Ranganayaki

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶11

The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶12

The Chief Educational Officer, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶13

The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶14

..Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) on 06.09.2010 with all consequential and other attendant benefits including arrears of salary, by considering the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 07.10.2014.

¶16

Page No.1 of 5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.23736 of 2015

¶19

For petitioner : Mr.J.Jajamaran for S.Nedunchezhiyan For respondents : Ms.M.Jayanthy Addl.Government Pleader

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to regularize the service

¶22

of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment to the post of B.T.Assistant (English) on 06.09.2010 with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 07.10.2014.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a B.A(English) graduate and completed B.Ed in the year 1980 and enrolled in the employment exchange for appointment to the post of teacher. She is also a deserted woman and accordingly obtained the relevant certificate from the authorities concerned on 20.08.2009.

¶24

The fourth respondent conducted selection to the post of Graduate Assistant through employment exchange and basing on the seniority her name was sponsored for selection to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) under the category of Backward Class (BC) community.

¶25

On 30.04.2010 she has received a call letter from the fourth Page No.2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.23736 of 2015

¶28

respondent to attend certificate verification and she has also provided all the relevant documents during the verification. Subsequently she was appointed as B.T. Assistant (English) by the second respondent by an order dated 03.09.2010 in proceedings Na.Ka.No.085277/C3/E1/2010 in Girls High School Divan Sapudur, Coimbatore.

¶29

During the due course the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 23.02.2011 to explain as to why her appointment should not cancelled on the ground that her appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) was made on priority basis whereas her name was not sponsored from the employment exchange under the priority category.

¶30

The petitioner submitted explanation dated 07.03.2011 but no further action was taken. Subsequently, she retired from service on 31.10.2015, after attaining the age of superannuation. She has submitted a representation dated 07.10.2014, but the said representation was not disposed of. Hence, this writ petition.

¶31

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that if specific time is granted by this Court the representation of the petitioner dated 07.10.2014 will be considered and disposed of.

¶32

Page No.3 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.23736 of 2015

¶35

Considering the submissions made by either side, this writ

¶36

petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.10.2014 and dispose of as quickly as possible not later that eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of a order. Costs made easy.

¶37

21.11.2023

¶38

vca

¶39

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Citation: Yes/No

¶40

To:

¶41

The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶42

The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶43

The Chief Educational Officer, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶44

DR. D.NAGARJUN,J.

¶45

vca

¶46

Page No.4 of 5

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.No.23736 of 2015

¶49

The Chairman, The Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶50

W.P.No.23736 of 2015

¶51

21.11.2023

¶52

Page No.5 of 5

¶53

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

S. Ranganayaki, v. The Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Ranganayaki, v. The Director of School

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

E.Murugan Vs The Director

V.Periyasamy Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Y.a.Mahalingam Vs Govt of India

N.Kumaresan Vs The Presiding Officer

N.Selvamani Vs The Secretary to the

A.Easudoss Vs The State of Tamilnadu