G.Balakrishnan Vs the Director of School Education

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to absorb the petitioner as Trained Graduate Teacher in the second respondent school with effect from 09.07.1992 as requested by him in his representation dated 28.10.2024.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.Syed Mustafa Standing Counsel (Pondy)

¶16

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

¶17

1/5

¶18

W.P.NO.5637 OF 2025

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction against the first respondent to absorb the petitioner as Trained Graduate Teacher in the second respondent - school with effect from 09.07.1992 as requested by him in his representation dated 28.10.2024.

¶21

2.Though the Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Government of Puducherry states that the petitioner’s claim requires a detailed examination. This is because the Government of Puducherry has discovered that several appointment orders issued by schools were either forged or fraudulently prepared, with backdated entries or dates when no requisite posts were available. On behalf of the first respondent, it is contended that a Committee has been formed within the Education Department to scrutinize the appointment orders of individual teachers, including those proposed by the second respondent-school. If it is found that the petitioner’s appointment order is irregular and not in conformity

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.NO.5637 OF 2025

¶25

with the rules and regulations, or fraudulently prepared, the petitioner

¶26

will not be entitled to any relief. However, if the appointment order is found to be valid and in proper form, the relief sought in the writ petition shall be considered accordingly.

¶27

3.Instead of granting a Mandamus, a direction is issued to

¶28

the first respondent to examine the petitioner’s appointment order, as forwarded by the second respondent-school and carefully examine the relevant records. If it is found that the petitioner was not properly appointed, pass appropriate orders, taking into account the irregularity or fraudulent aspect of the appointment, otherwise grant necessary relief as sought in the representation.

¶29

4.The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶30

19.02.2025

¶31

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.NO.5637 OF 2025