The Appellate Court dismissed a Letters Patent appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition seeking appointment as a teacher. The High Court held that disputed questions regarding the reliability of documents and the existence of a promise for appointment are not suitable for determination in writ proceedings.
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.654 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.04.2024
CORAM
JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE and JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
W.A.(MD) No.654 of 2018
C.Mary John ... Appellant/Writ Petitioner
Vs.
3.The Correspondent, Higher Secondary School, Kallupallam, Edaicode Post, Kanyakumari District-629 155. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 08.02.2018 passed in W.P.(MD) No.15341 of 2012.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Xavier Rajini For RR1 & 2 : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Ms.J.Anandhavalli
_________Page 1 of 8
JUDGMENT
W.A.(MD) No.654 of 2018
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Seshasayee, J.)
This appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 08.02.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.15341 of 2012 which the appellant/writ petitioner had filed seeking the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent, an Aided Minority Higher Secondary School at Kallupallam in Kanyakumari District to appoint the writ petitioner as B.T. Assistant (in science) in the said school. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the said petition essentially on the ground that reliability of certain documents, which the petitioner had produced before him, is questionable.
a) That the 3rd respondent is an aided minority linguistic school. The Management that runs this school also was running two other schools of which one was a self-financing school. According to the writ petitioner, on 05.06.1991, the writ petitioner was appointed in the 3rd respondent-School under the self-financing category on a consolidated
_________Page 2 of 8
W.A.(MD) No.654 of 2018
salary. A year later, on 01.06.1992, he was transferred to the High School, Mankalai, where he worked till 24.03.1998. Thereafter, from 01.06.1999, he worked with the 3rd respondent-School.
_________Page 3 of 8
W.A.(MD) No.654 of 2018
the writ petition. As earlier outlined, this is now under challenge in this appeal.
Page 4 of 8
W.A.(MD) No.654 of 2018
an interim order restraining the 3rd respondent from filling up vacancies in its school. In its application for vacating the said interim order, the 3rd respondent-School has communicated that it has not filled up the vacancy, but later changed positions to inform the Court that it had appointed certain T.Wills in that slot. The 3rd respondent is seen to have change colours like a chameleon to come out with its inconsistent and contradictory stands.
_________Page 5 of 8
W.A.(MD) No.654 of 2018
12.07.2007, the Manager of the School passed away and it is in these circumstances, the writ petitioner has came out with a letter dated
15.11.2005 and pressed the same into service by seven years later.
_________Page 6 of 8
W.A.(MD) No.654 of 2018
But whether the promise at all was made is now in dispute. At one level, the dispute involves breach of promise, but another level, it even questions the very existence of the promise. These are all the issues that can never be conveniently decided in a writ proceedings. Needless to state, this Court has very little option than to confirm the order of the learned Single Judge.
(N.S.S., J.) (P.V.M., J.) 03.04.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes ABR
Page 7 of 8
W.A.(MD) No.654 of 2018
N. SESHASAYEE, J. and P.VADAMALAI, J.
ABR
To
W.A.(MD) No.654 of 2018
03.04.2024
Page 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can decide the disputed validity of documents and existence of a promise for appointment in writ proceedings?
Whether the aided minority school is amenable to writ jurisdiction regarding unfair actions?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ivy C.da.Conceicao Vs. State of Goa and othersReferred¶33
Ivy C.da.Conceicao Vs. State of Goa and others [(2017) 2 MLJ 215 (SC)]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C. Mary John
The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District
The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai
The Correspondent, Higher Secondary School, Kallupallam
N. Seshasayee
P. Vadamalai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
