Disposed

The Correspondent v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC9 Feb 2024WP(MD)/2914/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Chief Educational Officer to consider a proposal for appointing a teacher as B.T. Assistant and pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks, exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

Directed the fourth respondent to consider the proposal and pass an order within 12 weeks from the date of the order.

The Correspondent Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.2914 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.2914 of 2024

¶7

The Correspondent St.Marys Higher Secondary School, Kaliyal, Kanyakumari District.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George,

¶11

Chennai - 600 009.

¶12

The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶13

The Joint Director of School Education (Secondary), DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶14

The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil.

¶15

The District Educational Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

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

¶18

1/6

¶19

W.P.(MD).No.2914 of 2024

¶20

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to approve the appointment of L. Mary Libina as B.T. Assistant in Social Science from the date of her initial appointment that is from 01.08.2023 and to pay arrear of salary and all attendant service and monitory benefits consequent to the same by considering the proposal of the petitioner, dated 10.01.2024 within a stipulated time specified by this Court.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr. SC.Herold Singh For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of L. Mary Libina as B.T. Assistant in Social Science from the date of her initial appointment that is from 01.08.2023 and to pay arrear of salary and all attendant service and monitory benefits consequent to the same by considering the proposal of the petitioner, dated 10.01.2024 within a stipulated time specified by this Court.

¶24

2 .By consent of both parties, considering the limited relief sought

¶25

for by the petitioner, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶26

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

¶27

2/6

¶28

W.P.(MD).No.2914 of 2024

¶29

3.Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Perused the materials on record.

¶30

4.The petitioner's School is a minority institution and receiving grant-in-aids towards the salary of the teaching and non-teaching staff. There arose a vacancy in the post of B.T.Assistant in Social Science, due to retirement of one P.S.Rajan on 31.07.2023. One L.Mary Libina made an application to the said post. Considering her eligibility, she was appointed in the said post with effect from 01.08.2023. To approve the appointment of said L.Mary Libina, a proposal has been sent by the petitioner's school to the fourth respondent and the same is kept pending. Hence, this writ petition came to be filed.

¶31

5.It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such,

¶32

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

¶33

3/6

¶34

W.P.(MD).No.2914 of 2024

¶35

non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶36

6.Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for by the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, this Court hereby direct the fourth respondent to consider the proposal forwarded by the petitioner's School and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of twelve (12) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

7.With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

09.02.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PNM

¶39

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

¶40

4/6

¶41

W.P.(MD).No.2914 of 2024

¶42

¶43

The Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶44

The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶45

The Joint Director of School Education (Secondary), DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶46

The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil.

¶47

The District Educational Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District.

¶48

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

¶49

5/6

¶50

W.P.(MD).No.2914 of 2024

¶51

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶52

PNM

¶53

ORDER IN W.P.(MD).No.2914 of 2024

¶54

09.02.2024

¶55

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

¶56

6/6

The Correspondent v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Correspondent v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Rajendran Vs The Registrar

P.Dhanapal Vs The Managing Director

R.Velmurugan Vs The Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary)

Angayarakanni Vs The Chief Educational Officer

K.Raja Vs The Director of School Education

Elisapeth Rani Vs The Director