Disposed

Jenita.S v. The Director of School Education

Madras HC20 Jun 2024WP(MD)/2138/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought certification to quash a District Educational Officer's order regarding her non-appointment as a teacher. The court held the order was internal correspondence and disposed of the petition without costs, noting aggrieved parties should approach the School Committee directly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without costs and connected petitions were closed.

Jenita.S Vs The Director of School Education — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.2138 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.2138 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos. 2134, 2135 and 4786 of 2024

S.Jenita

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director of School Education, College Road,

¶12

Chennai – 600 006.

¶13

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

3.The District Educational Officer, (Elementary Education), Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.

¶15

4.The Block Educational Officer, Kalakadu, Tirunelveli District.

¶16

5.The Correspondent, CMS Evangelical Middle School, Melapathai, Kalakad, Tirunelveli District.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD).No.2138 of 2024

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent District Educational Officer in O.Mu. No.2248/Aa1 (Aa2)/2022 dated 20.01.2023, quash the same and further direct the third respondent DEO to approve forthwith the appointment of petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in the fifth respondent CMS Evangelical Middle School, Melapathai, w.e.f., the date of her appointment viz., 08.11.2021, with all attendant benefits including arrears of salary.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar For M/s.Isaac Chambers

¶23

For R-1 to R-4 : Mr.M.Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Heard Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar, for M/s.Isaac Chambers, learned

¶26

counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶27

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the order of

¶28

the third respondent dated 20.01.2023 and further direct the third respondent DEO to approve forthwith the appointment of petitioner as

¶29

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

¶30

2/6

¶31

W.P.(MD).No.2138 of 2024

¶32

Secondary Grade Teacher in the fifth respondent CMS Evangelical Middle School, Melapathai, w.e.f., the date of her appointment viz., 08.11.2021, with all attendant benefits including arrears of salary.

¶33

Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶34

submitted that the impugned order of the third respondent dated 20.01.2023 is just a return endorsement addressed to the Block

¶35

Development Officer in order to get the proposal represented with the certain documents listed in the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fifth respondent School is a Minority Institution for which TET qualification is not necessary. But, in the impugned order, one of the requirement has been stated as the production of TET eligibility of the appointee. But all these informations should be furnished by the School Committee which is responsible for the administration for appointment and all other affairs of the School. In fact, the order dated 20.01.2023 was not communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner has managed to get a copy of the order and she herself has started to give a reply to the return endorsement made by the third respondent. When an official communication has been made from one

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD).No.2138 of 2024

¶39

authority to another authority, it is for the authority concerned to give the clarification or furnish the additional details and individual has got no role to play.

¶40

4. If the petitioner is aggrieved, in case, she presumes that there is inaction on part of the School Committee which appointed her, the best thing she can do is to make a representation to the School Committee to take the matter forward by attaching the required documents by giving appropriate explanation and re-submit the proposal to the District Educational Officer for processing the proposal further and pass orders.

¶41

5. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶42

20.06.2024

¶43

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD).No.2138 of 2024

¶47

To:

¶48

1.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶49

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶50

3.The District Educational Officer, (Elementary Education), Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.

¶51

4.The Block Educational Officer, Kalakadu, Tirunelveli District.

¶52

5/6

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.(MD).No.2138 of 2024

¶55

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶56

Nsr

¶57

W.P.(MD).No.2138 of 2024

¶58

20.06.2024

¶59

6/6

¶60

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

Jenita.S v. The Director of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jenita.S v. The Director of School Education

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

Suriyanath J.K Vs The Joint Director (Vocational)

Dr.G.Muruganantham Vs a. Karthik I.A.S.

M/s.A.693 Vellabommanpatti Vs The Appellate Authority under the Tamilnadu Shops and

P. Harihara Raman, Vs K. Gopal, I.A.S.

Joyce Josephine Nesa Packiam J Vs The District Elementary Educational Officer

Ananda Samuel Devairakkam.S Vs The Chief Educational Officer