Writ appeal against approval of an Office Assistant appointment in a Madurai aided school. Since the appointee deserted the school and left employment before resubmission of proposal, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and closed the matter as moot.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A(MD).No.1924 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 18.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A.(MD)No.1924 of 2021
and CMP(MD) Nos.8525 of 2021 and 84 of 2022
... Appellants/Respondents
Vs
MLWA, Higher Secondary School, No.9, Raja Mill Road, Maninagaram, Madurai-625 001, Rep. by its Secretary, S.Bhawarlal.
... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
PRAYER : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act to set aside the order, dated 15.04.2021 in W.P.(MD)No.7778 of 2021.
1/5
W.A(MD).No.1924 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr.F.Deepak
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal has been filed by the respondents in W.P(MD) No.7778 of 2021, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 15.04.2021, by which, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition.
2.The writ petition had been filed in the nature of mandamus
by the first respondent, MLWA Higher Secondary School at Madurai seeking approval of appointment of R.Britto Raj in the sanctioned post of Office Assistant from the date of appointment on 15.03.2021 based on proposed submitted by the School on 16.02.2021.
3.The learned Single Judge had examined whether the said
post was a sanctioned post, whether the individual R.Britto Raj was
2/5
W.A(MD).No.1924 of 2021
selected and appointed through due process. It had been found by the learned Single Judge, consequent to judgment of Division Bench in W.A.No.1022 of 2020, dated 07.01.2021 (the Director of School Education and Others Vs S.Murugan and another), that the respondents were bound to approve the appointment of R.Britto Raj as Office Assistant in the petitioner's School. The writ petitioner was directed to resubmit the proposal to the respondents within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order of writ Court and further direction had been given to the respondents/appellants to approve the appointment of R.Britto Raj in the sanctioned vacancy.
4.However, the first respondent's School found itself in a peculiar situation, since R.Britto Raj deserted the School and left the employment.
5.In such view of the matter, since the individual left the employment, there is no need for resubmission of proposal by the first respondent herein. Therefore, we held that there is no use in keeping the writ appeal pending and the writ appeal is to be necessarily succeeded.
3/5
W.A(MD).No.1924 of 2021
Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(C.V.K., J.) (R.P., J.) 18.10.2024
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No PNM
To
4/5
W.A(MD).No.1924 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. and R.POORNIMA, J.
PNM
WA.(MD)No.1924 of 2021 and CMP(MD) Nos.8525 of 2021 and 84 of 2022
18.10.2024
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether approval of appointment of R.Britto Raj as Office Assistant should proceed given he deserted the school and left employment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Director of School Education and Others Vs S.Murugan and anotherReferred¶29
W.A.No.1022 of 2020, dated 07.01.2021
The Director of School Education
The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District
The District Educational Officer, Madurai Education District
MLWA, Higher Secondary School, Madurai, Rep. by its Secretary, S.Bhawarlal
C.V.Karthikeyan
R.Poornima
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
