Disposed

D.Augustin v. the District Educational Officer

Madras HC3 Jan 2023WP(MD)/5556/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner challenged the appointment of a school headmaster as the correspondent of his association due to conflict of interest. The respondent, Principal Respondent, undertook to appoint a new correspondent within four weeks. The court disposed of the petition on this submission.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of on the undertaking of the third respondent to appoint a new correspondent within four weeks. No costs awarded.

D.Augustin Vs the District Educational Officer — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.5556 OF 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.5556 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2361, 4866, 4867 & 7830 of 2020

¶7

D.Augustin ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Educational Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶10

The District Registrar (Administration), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

Lal Bahadur Kennedy ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.1998/Aa3/2019 dt 16.04.2019 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai

¶14

For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.N.Sathees Kumar, Additional Government Pleader. For R-3 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy * * *

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

2 W.P.(MD)NO.5556 OF 2020

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶20

2. The petitioner questions the approval of the third respondent as the Correspondent of The Kovilpatti Tamil Baptist Schools Association. The primary ground of attack is that Thiru.Lal Bahadur Kennedy being the Headmaster of one of the schools run by the association should not also act as its Correspondent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that if the Headmaster commits any misconduct, then he would be in a position to judge of his own cause.

¶21

3. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent without entering into the merits of the controversy submitted that an application will be submitted to the authorities concerned for appointing a new Correspondent. This shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

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

¶23

2/4

¶24

3 W.P.(MD)NO.5556 OF 2020

¶25

4. Recording the submission of the third respondent

¶26

that there will be a change in the post of the Correspondent of the society, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶27

03.01.2023

¶28

NCS : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶29

PMU

¶30

To:

¶31

The District Educational Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶32

The District Registrar (Administration), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶33

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

¶34

3/4

¶35

4 W.P.(MD)NO.5556 OF 2020

¶36

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶37

PMU

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.5556 of 2020

¶39

03.01.2023

¶40

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

¶41

4/4

D.Augustin v. the District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Augustin 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

Gnanaraj.a.T Vs State Information Commissioner

Sathishkumar Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Rajapalayam Chamber of Vs State of Tamilnadu

Muthammal Vs The District Collector

Subramaniam(Died) 1.S.NAGARAJAN Vs K.S.Annapoorani Bai (Died) 2.N.ARULCHANDAR

Kelamathur Muslim Jamath Jumma Vs the Tahsildar