Allowed

Gnanadurai. D v. The Chief Educational Officer

Madras HC29 Apr 2024WP(MD)/6409/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A BT Assistant (History), appointed in 2018 in an aided school against a sanctioned post, sought quashing of the DEO's order refusing approval of his appointment and grant-in-aid. The Government Pleader conceded the order was passed on a wrong reference. The court set aside the order and directed the CEO to reconsider and pass orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned DEO order set aside; CEO directed to consider the approval proposal as a sanctioned post and issue orders within eight weeks.

Gnanadurai. D Vs The Chief Educational Officer — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD) No.6409 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 29.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.6409 of 2024 and WMP(MD)No.6003 of 2024

¶7

D.Gnanadurai .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Chief Educational Officer, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

2.The District Educational Officer, (Secondary Education), Kamaraj Municipal Higher Secondary School(Campus) Pettai, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

3.The Correspondent, St.Peter's Higher Secondary School, Ukkirankottai, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents

¶12

Page No.1/8

¶13

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

¶14

WP(MD) No.6409 of 2024

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent DEO in A.Thi.Mu.No.3633/a3/2023 dated ....08.2023 and quash the same further direct the 1^st respondent Chief Educational Officer herein to approve forthwith the appointment of the petitioner as BT Assistant (History) in the 3^rd respondent school, namely, St.Peter's Higher Secondary Schoool, Ukkirankottai from the date of his appointment ie., 04.06.2018 and disburse the grant-in-aid towards his salary and allowance with effect from the said date.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Amala For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan Additonal Government Pleader for R1& R2

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent

¶19

Page No.2/8

¶20

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

¶21

WP(MD) No.6409 of 2024

¶22

in 2^nd respondent DEO in A.Thi.Mu.No.3633/a3/2023 dated ....08.2023 and for a consequential direction to the 1^st respondent to approve forthwith the appointment of the petitioner as BT Assistant (History) in the 3^rd respondent school, namely, St.Peter's Higher Secondary Schoool, Ukkirankottai from the date of his appointment ie., 04.06.2018 and disburse the grant-in-aid towards his salary and allowance with effect from the said date.

¶23

2 . Heard Ms.A.Amala learned counsel appearing for the

¶24

petitioner, Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2.

¶25

3. The petitioner was appointed as a BT Assistant (History) on 04.06.2018 at the third respondent school as against the sanctioned vacancy in BT Assistant (History). When the proposal was sent for approval to the second respondent, the same was returned stating the

¶26

Page No.3/8

¶27

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

¶28

WP(MD) No.6409 of 2024

¶29

following reasons:

¶30

"1/mry; jpUg;gg;gLfpwJ./ 2/gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Fehpd; bray;Kiwfs; e/f/vz;34116-o1-,4-2013 ehs; 29/03/2023 d;go ,ju gzpapl';fs; epakd xg;g[jy; tH';FtJ rhh;e;J mwpt[iufs; jdpna tH';fg;gLk; vdj; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt gpd;dh; ghprPypf;fg;gLk; vdj; tptuk ; rkge;jg;gl;l gs;spj;jhshsUf;F bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/"

¶31

4. Ms.A.Amala, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶32

that when the post against which the petitioner was appointed is a sanctioned post and there is no need to get any staff fixation approval from any authorities. Hence, the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 has been passed under wrong notion that the post for which the petitioner was appointed is a non-sanctioned post.

¶33

Page No.4/8

¶34

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

¶35

WP(MD) No.6409 of 2024

¶36

5. Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned Additional Government

¶37

Pleader for the respondents submitted that the impugned order has been passed on a wrong reference and if the matter is remitted back to the respondents, the same shall be considered on merits and fresh orders will be passed.

¶38

6. Since the petitioner has been appointed in the year 2018 and so far the approval has not been granted despite the third respondent has been making continuous communication by complying all the requirements sought by the first respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor himself submitted that the impugned order has been passed with a wrong reference, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶39

7. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to consider

¶40

Page No.5/8

¶41

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

¶42

WP(MD) No.6409 of 2024

¶43

the proposal sent by the petitioner by taking into account that the post is a sanctioned post and that the file is pending for more than 5 years and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶44

29.04.2024

¶45

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No PJL

¶46

To 1.The Chief Educational Officer, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli District.

¶47

2.The District Educational Officer, (Secondary Education), Kamaraj Municipal Higher Secondary School(Campus) Pettai, Tirunelveli District.

¶48

Page No.6/8

¶49

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

¶50

WP(MD) No.6409 of 2024

¶51

Page No.7/8

¶52

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

¶53

WP(MD) No.6409 of 2024

¶54

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶55

PJL

¶56

W.P.(MD)No.6409 of 2024 and WMP(MD)No.6003 of 2024

¶57

29.04.2024

¶58

Page No.8/8

¶59

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

Gnanadurai. D v. The Chief Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gnanadurai. D v. The Chief Educational Officer

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

G.Kannan Vs The Director of Pensions

M.Kannan Vs The chairman / Executive Authority

T.Bhuvaneswari Vs The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel)

B.Jothimani Vs The Commissioner

Vasantha P Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Venkatesh M Vs The Principal Accountant General a and E Tamil Nadu