Disposed

Rajeshwaran v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC6 Jun 2024WP(MD)/4013/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Madras High Court, in a writ petition for appointment as a teacher, directed the statutory authorities to consider the petitioner's pending representation on merits within six weeks, noting the four-year delay and dereliction of duty, without adjudicating the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 24.01.2024 on merits and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Rajeshwaran Vs The Government of Tamilnadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.4013 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.4013 of 2024 & W.M.P.(MD)No.3901 of 2024

¶7

Rajeshwaran ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Secretariat,

¶10

Chennai - 600 009.

¶11

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

¶12

3.The Director of School Education, Elementary Level, College road, DPI Complex, Chennai - 600 006.

¶13

4.The Teachers' Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Fourth Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai,

¶14

College road, Chennai - 600 006. ... Respondents

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.4013 of 2024

¶18

Prayer

¶19

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher (TET Exam Paper-I) on the basis of the Certificate Verification held in the year 2013 without insisting upon the petitioner to pass Teachers Eligibility Test.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthupandi For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan, Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶21

Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan for R4

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner herein, who had passed the TET Exam Paper I for Secondary Grade Teacher (Diploma Teacher Education) in the year 2013 and TET Exam Paper II for Graduate Assistant in the year 2017 is awaiting Government Job for more than 11 years. However, the Government has once again announced a competitive exam. Therefore, he has sent a representation to the respondents on 24.01.2024 and the same representation is yet to be considered. Hence, the writ petition.

¶24

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

¶25

2/5

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.4013 of 2024

¶27

2. 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 them to consider the same on their own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty. The failure on the part of the Authority had prompted the petitioner to file this petition seeking relief through issuance of writ of mandamus. As the petitioner has made out a case for invoking the extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respondents are required to be given with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner within a specific time frame.

¶28

3. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.01.2024 on their own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and in the light of the judicial pronouncements already given in this regard, within a period of six weeks

¶29

3/5

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.4013 of 2024

¶32

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it is open to the respondents to consider the same on their own merits.

¶33

4. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed

¶34

of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶35

06.06.2024

¶36

NCC: Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mbi

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

3.The Director of School Education, Elementary Level, College road, DPI Complex, Chennai - 600 006.

¶41

4/5

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.4013 of 2024

¶44

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶45

mbi

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.4013 of 2024

¶47

06.06.2024

¶48

5/5

¶49

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

Rajeshwaran v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwaran v. The Government of Tamilnadu

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

Leelavathi G Vs The District Level Empowered Committee

Periyasamy .K Vs The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.

Dhandapani v Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

D.Jane Mercy Arputhamani Vs The State of Tamilnadu

S.Srinivasagam Vs The District Treasury Officer

Kannan Vs The Managing Director