← Library
Madras High CourtWP/23809/2014disposed of

D.Shanthi, v. The Director Of School

2020-11-23Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.11.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P. NO.23809 OF 2014 D.Shanthi

...Petitioner

-vs - 1.The Director of School Education, Chennai - 6.

2. The Chief Educational Officer, Tiruvanamalai District.

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to include the name of the petitioner in panel for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (History) drawn as on 01.01.2014 for the year as 2014-2015 in the appropriate place and promote the petitioner in view of Na.Ka.No.114632/C3/E2/2009 dated 08.12.2009 and grant him all consequential benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondents : Mr.S.Suresh Kumar, Government Advocate.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents herein to include the name of the petitioner in panel for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (History) drawn as on 01.01.2014 for the year 2014-2015 in the appropriate place and promote the petitioner in view of Na.Ka.No.114632/C3/E2/2009 dated 08.12.2009 and grant him all consequential benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she joined the services as Secondary Grade Teacher through Employment Exchange on 31.01.2001 and subsequently her services were regularised on 30.01.2003. Thereafter, she completed B.Lit course in May, 2005 and, thereafter, she acquired B.A.(History) and B.Ed courses during the period between 2010 and 2013. The petitioner applied

for the post of School Head master through proper channel. Due to completion of both degrees in the same academic year, her name was not considered for inclusion in the promotion panel by the 1st respondent. However, juniors to the petitioner were promoted and they joined the promotional post during the year 2014. It is averred in the petition that even persons similarly placed like the petitioner were promoted. Hence, she filed this writ petition seeking appropriate direction.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that persons similarly placed like the petitioner were considered for promotion and, in fact, were promoted and, therefore, prays that this Court without going into the merits of the issue, may permit the petitioner to submit a representation along with the requisite details as to the persons, who were similarly placed and who have been promoted and, the respondents may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Court.

4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has no objection to such a direction being issued.

5. In the light of the stand taken by the learned counsel on either side, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the petitioner to submit a representation along with the details of the persons, who are similarly placed and who have been promoted, to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the respondents are directed to consider the representation on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

6. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VII) // True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsi2 To 1.The Director of School Education, Chennai - 6.

2. The Chief Educational Officer, Tiruvanamalai District.

+1cc to Mr.R.Jayaprakash, Advocate, SR.No.37600 +1cc to Government Pleader, SR.No.37750 W.P. No.23809 of 2014 PM(CO) KKV/14/12/2020