← Library
Madras High CourtWP/23355/2007dismissed

N.Valliyammal v. The Director

2018-07-19Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.07.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.23355 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2007 N.Valliyammal ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director, The Director of Teacher Education (Research and Training) Chennai - 6.

2. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

3. A.Kalavathy Secondary Grade Teacher, Government Service Home, Tambaram, Chennai.

... Respondents Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent herein dated 27.07.2006 in Rc.No.1248/C1/2005 and quash the same as far as for the post of Tamil Lecturer is concerned and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint petitioner herein in the post of Tamil Lecturer. For Petitioner : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan For Respondents : Mr.P.Raja Government Advocate

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the Writ petition challenging the the order passed by the first respondent herein dated 27.07.2006 in Rc.No.1248/C1/2005 and quash the same as far as the post of Tamil Lecturer is concerned and consequently direct the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

respondents 1 and 2 to appoint petitioner herein in the post of Tamil Lecturer.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that one Kalavathy, 3rd respondent herein, who is junior to the petitioner and who completed B.Ed Course in 1997, has been appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher at Government Service Home, Tambaram, Chennai. According to the petitioner, being senior to the third respondent, she should have been considered for the post of Tamil Lecturer and therefore, the petitioner has questioned the approval of the Director of Teacher Education (Research and Training), and National Council for Teacher Education.

3. Though the petitioner contends that she is senior to the third respondent, no record has been produced before this Court to show that the third respondent Kalavathy is junior to the petitioner. In the absence of any such record to substantiate the contention of the petitioner, it is difficult to accept that Kalavathy is junior to the petitioner. Moreover, at the time of filing of this writ petition, the petitioner was aged about 48 years, and now she would be 58 years. Hence, nothing survives in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director, The Director of Teacher Education (Research and Training) Chennai - 6.

2. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.48922 W.P.No.23355 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2007 VGII(CO) GSP(04/10/2018) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/