K.Singaram v. The Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 25.06.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.No.19475 of 2011 K.Singaram

...Petitioner

Vs 1.The Director, Directorate of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai.

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Thriuvalluvar, Thiruvalluvar District.

3.The District Educational Officer, Ponneri District.

4.The Secretary, Vellaiyan Chettiar Higher Secondary School, Thiruvattiyur, Chennai 600 019.

...Respondents

Prayer:- The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent culminating in the order of Na.Ka.No.3402/AA1/2007, dated 04.04.2008, quashing the same and directing the respondents 1 to 3 to dispose of the representation after comply due procedure prescribed under the law.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Alagu Narayanan For Respondents for RR1 to 3 : Mr.C.Harsha Raj for R4 : Mr.Anand Gopalan for Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Co.

ORDER

The writ petition pertains to the grant of incentives to the petitioner in relation to the acquisition of higher educational qualifications. The petitioner states that a representation dated 04.04.2008 was submitted in relation to the above, but

the respondents 1 to 3 have not granted increments or disposed of the representation. The petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition in such facts and circumstances.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of this Court to two judgments of this Court:(i)Dr.G.Korakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, W.P.No.23185 of 2012, order dated 20.08.2014; and (ii)N.Jayaraman v. The Secretary to Government School Education Department and others, W.P.No.9659 of 2014, order dated 20.08.2018. He submitted that in both these cases, the Court considered petitions seeking similar relief favourably. In effect, he contends that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments.

3. Learned counsel for the State/respondents 1 to 3 submits that initially physical education teachers were not covered by the relevant Government Order, but that another Government Order was issued in the year 2016, whereby incentive increments were also extended to physical education teachers. Accordingly, he submits that the representation of the petitioner would be considered and disposed of in light of the aforesaid developments within a reasonable time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

4. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter, the Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvallur District, is directed to consider the representation dated 20.07.2010 of the petitioner and dispose of the same by a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is granted leave to submit any documents or authorities in support of the representation to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent is directed to consider the above materials and the orders passed by this Court earlier while disposing of the petitioner's representation. W.P.No.19475 of 2011 is disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar pvs To 1.The Director, Directorate of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai.

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Thriuvalluvar, Thiruvalluvar District.

3.The District Educational Officer, Ponneri District.

+1cc to Mr.N.Alagu Narayanan, Advocate, S.R.No.29497 W.P.No.19475 of 2011 GPL(CO) RVM(23/07/2011)