Mr.R.V.Balaji v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN R.V.Balaji ... Petitioner Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Secretary to Government School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education Directorate of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006.
3. The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel) Directorate of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006.
4. The Chief Educational Officer, Veerappa Nagar, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu 635 001.
5. The Block Educational Officer, Office of Block Education, 1/6
Kelamangalam, Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records culminated in Na.Ka.No.31325/A3/E2/2020, dated 09.02.2024 of the third respondent and quash the same as null and void and direct the respondents 1 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner as Superintendent in 5th respondent office in a non-sensitive post, pending disposal of the criminal case.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Johnson For Respondents : Mrs.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records culminated in Na.Ka.No.31325/A3/E2/2020, dated 09.02.2024 of the third respondent and quash the same as null and void and direct the respondents 1 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner as Superintendent in 5th respondent office in a 2/6
non-sensitive post, pending disposal of the criminal case.
2. The petitioner seeks to be reinstated as Superintendent in the 5th respondent office and the petitioner also claims that he should be posted in a non sensitive post. I am not able to understand the distinction between sensitive posts and non sensitive posts. Any public servant so as to discharge duty should look upon such duty as sensitive not only in the nature of work but also with respect to the beneficiaries for such duty is discharged.
3. A perusal of the affidavit shows that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.4/2020 and had been initially suspended from service on 14.08.2020. It had been further stated that he had then filed W.P.No.16253 of 2022 and a direction was issued to consider the representation of the petitioner herein. It is stated that subsequently the impugned order had been passed placing the petitioner under suspension and rejecting the representation given. Any order passed in the nature of suspension is to the satisfaction of the respondents and the Court cannot 3/6
interfere unless it is found that it is perverse in nature or that more than the specific time has passed from the passing of the suspension order. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the third respondent and accordingly the wit petition stands dismissed. No costs. 28.02.2025 dpq Index: Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order 4/6
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Secretary to Government School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education Directorate of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006.
3. The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel) Directorate of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006.
4. The Chief Educational Officer, Veerappa Nagar, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu 635 001.
5. The Block Educational Officer, Office of Block Education, Kelamangalam, Krishnagiri District.
5/6
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
dpq 28.02.2025 6/6