Madras High CourtWP/3500/2025disposed of

P.J.Justin v. State Of Tamil Nadu

2025-02-20Honourable Mr Justice C.V. Karthikeyan7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 20.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN W.P.No.3500 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.3916 of 2025

1. P.J. Justin

2. M. Divya

3. S. Malathy

4. M. Steffy Joyce ... Petitioners vs

1. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

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

3. The Chief Educational Officer, Chennai District, Chennai 600 008.

4. The Educational Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

1/7

5. The Chief Educational Officer Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

6. The Honorary Secretary, CSI Madras Dioceses, Chennai.

7. The Education Officer / Convener, Board of Education, CSI Madras Dioceses, Chennai

8. The Correspondent, CSI Keller Higher Secondary school, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

9. The Correspondent, CSI Corley Higher Secondary School, Tambaram, Chennai 600 045.

10. The Correspondent, CSI Anderson Higher Secondary School, Kancheepuram.

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ, order, or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Official Respondents to consider the objections submitted by the petitioners by representation dated 31.12.2024 and 04.01.2025 and consequently direct the Official respondents to approve the appointment of petitioners in the post of P.G. Assistant in their respective schools based on the valid appointment order dated 20.09.2023 issued in favour of the petitioners, with all consequential and other attendants benefits,within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

For Petitioners : Mr. S. Nedunchezhiyan For R1 to R5 : Mrs. S. Mythreyee Chandru Special Government Pleader 2/7

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction against the respondents 1-7 to consider the objection submitted by the writ petitioners by representations dated 31.12.2024 and 04.01.2025 and for a consequential direction to approve the appointment of the petitioners to the post of P.G. Assistants in the respective schools based on the appointment order dated 20.09.2023 and simultaneously examine the objections raised by the petitioners with respect to grant of approval for other teachers who have not been impleaded in the Writ Petition.

2. But, however, seeking to implead the teachers whose appointment had been approved, the petitioners filed WMP No.6527 of 2025. However, in view of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents 1 to 7, it may not be necessary on the part of this Court to take up W.M.P. 6527 of 2025 for consideration.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners claim that they had been appointed to the post of 3/7

P.G.Assistants in the respective schools which had been impleaded as respondents 8 to 10, by an order dated 20.09.2023. The said schools or management of the said schools had not put up any proposal seeking approval of such appointment. It is therefore contended that, unless such approvals for appointment is put up as proposals before the respondents, it may not be possible for the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioners on the representations made by them. The petitioners are subject to the direct control of the Management of the respondents 8 to 10 who alone have the authority to appoint the petitioners and who alone have the authority to seek approval of such appointment.

4. It is also to be noted that since the petitioners' appointment had not been approved and the management of the schools in which they had been appointed had also not put up any proposal seeking approval of appointment as on date, the petitioners have no locus to raise objections relating to the appointment of other teachers who are sought to be impleaded in W.M.P. No.6527 of 2025. It is for that reason it had been observed earlier that it may not be necessary on the part of this Court to examine W.MP. No.6527 of 2025.

4/7

5. The petitioners must first get approval of their appointment. In order to facilitate that, the management of the schools where they had been appointed should first put up proposals seeking approval of appointment of the petitioners. If the Management puts up a proposal seeking to approve the appointment of the petitioners, I am confident that the respondents to whom such proposal is put up, would address the said issue in its proper light and with due application of mind. Only that particular observation can be made in this Writ Petition. The relief of mandamus to consider the objections cannot be granted. Placing a direction that the management of the schools in which the petitioners are functioning should put up a proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioners, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. There is no obligation on the respondents to consider the objections raised by the petitioners as on this date. In view of the above order, W.M.P. No.6527 of 2025 is dismissed as being superfluous. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

20.02.2025 Internet : Yes / No Index: Yes / No Speaking order / Non speaking order Bga 5/7