C.Sigamani, v. State Rep Director Of School

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.11.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.A.No.608 of 2016 C.Sigamani ..

Appellant/ Petitioner -vsState rep.by

1. Director of School Education DPI Campus, College Road Nungambakkam, Chennai

2. The Chief Educational Officer Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai

3. The District Educational Officer Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai

4. The Secretary Arcod Luthern Church Cuddalore Central Office Cuddalore

5. The Correspondent Danish Mission Higher Secondary School Tiruvannamalai

6. The Head Master Danish Mission Higher Secondary School Tiruvannamalai

7. Sangeetha, W/o Vimal ..

Respondents / Respondents Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 27.11.2014 made in W.P.No.35358 of 2012. W.P.No.35358 of 2012:- Petition presented to this court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4th and 5th respondents to appoint the petitioner to the Political Science vacancy arised on 5.10.2012 at the 6th respondent school based upon the petitioner representation dated 21.10.2012 considering his seniority and experience.

For Appellant ::

Mr.M.Sundar For Respondents ::

Mr.S.Pattabiraman Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.Srinath Sridevan for R4 Mr.P.Rajavel for R5 & R6 Mr.R.Neelakandan for R7

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) This appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.35358 of 2012 dated 27.11.2014. Initially the appellant/writ petitioner had moved this Court seeking for an order not to fill up one of the posts sought to be occupied by the seventh respondent. However, the seventh respondent was appointed and subject to the result of the writ petition, it appears that liberty was also given to the appellant/writ petitioner subsequently to challenge the appointment of the seventh respondent. In view of the modification of the order, instead of not filling the post, rather the post was filled by the fourth respondent Management. The appellant ought to have sought for amendment of the prayer to challenge the order of appointment of the seventh respondent, since she was already appointed as against the request of the appellant without reserving the post. In such circumstances, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, the writ petition became infructuous and it was dismissed accordingly.

2. When the appellant/writ petitioner has not made up his mind to get the prayer amended to challenge the appointment of the seventh respondent, which occurred during the pendency of the writ petition before the learned single Judge, in the absence of a specific prayer, rightly the writ petition has been dismissed. In these circumstances, it is for the appellant to make a fresh challenge as to the appointment of the seventh respondent. With this observation, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Consequently, C.M.P.No.8073 of 2016 is closed. No costs.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS III ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar ss

To

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

2. The Chief Educational Officer Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai

3. The District Educational Officer Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai 1 cc to Mr. Srinath Sridevan, Advocate, Sr. 63709 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 64135 W.A.No.608 of 2016 NM (CO) kk 30/11