Dismissed
D.Gajalakshmi v. The Director of Elementary Education
Madras HCWP/6634/2020
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.P.No.6634 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W . P No.6634 of 2020
and WMP.No.78665 of 2020
D.Gajalakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1/6
W.P.No.6634 of 2020
Pandarathankadu, Pushpavanam Post, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to promote the petitioner as Headmaster of 4th respondent school based on the petitioner's seniority and eligibility in pursuance of petitioner's representation dated 20-06-2019 forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prabakaran
For Respondents : Mr.P.Gurunathan, Additional Government Pleader for RR1 to 4
: Mr.S.N.Ravichandran for R5
ORDER
Heard, Mr.R.Prabakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.
Gurunathan learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the 5th respondent and perused the materials available on record.
2. The petitioner has filed a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4
to promote the petitioner as Headmaster of the 4th respondent's school based on
2/6
W.P.No.6634 of 2020
the seniority and eligibility. The petitioner has given a representation in this regard on 20-06-2019. However, it is now learnt that the 4th respondent has already appointed the 5th respondent as Headmaster on 01.06.2019 and the proposal is pending with the 2nd respondent for approval. So the petitioner has not challenged the above order but simply filed this Writ of Mandamus.
3. The petitioner submits that he is senior to the 5th respondent, but her
seniority has not been considered.
4. It is submitted by Mr. P. Gurunathan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that 17 (b) charges are pending against the petitioner and that the promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is based only on seniority.
5. However, nothing would prevent the petitioner from invoking the statutory appeal remedy available to her if the period of limitation is not expired. Even in cases of expiry of limitation, it is up to the petitioner to file a petition to condone the delay, along with an appeal and get appropriate orders from the
3/6
W.P.No.6634 of 2020
Appellate Authority.
In the result, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.02.2024
Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non- Speaking Neutral: Yes/No jrs
4/6
W.P.No.6634 of 2020
To
D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam,
5/6
W.P.No.6634 of 2020
R.N.MANJULA, J. jrs
W . P No.6634 of 2020 and WMP.No.78665 of 2020
27.02.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, senior but with pending disciplinary charges, should be promoted as Headmaster instead of the fifth respondent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.Gajalakshmi
The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai
The District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagapattinam
The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Vedaranyam
The Secretary, Vinayakar Aided Primary School, Pandarathankadu
Mrs. K. Chithra
R.N.Manjula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court