← Library
Madras High CourtWP/26313/2024dismissed

R.Suresh v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2024-09-11Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.09.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH and W.M.P.No.28749 of 2024 R.Suresh S/o.Rajakannu ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Director of School Education, Directorate of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

3.The Joint Director of School Education, Directorate of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

4.The Chief Educational Officer, Chennai District, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

5.The District Educational Officer, Chennai - North, DEO Secondary North Office, Villivakkam, Chennai - 600 049.

6.The Secretary/Correspondent of the School, 1/4

Sir M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar Hr.Sec.School, No.23, Raja Annamalai Road, Purasawalkam, Chennai - 600 084.

7.The Headmaster, Sir M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar Hr.Sec.School, No.23, Raja Annamalai Road, Purasawalkam, Chennai - 600 084.

8.M.Loganathan ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of quo-warranto, directing the eighth respondent and other official respondents to show cause under what authority the eighth respondent is holding the post of PG Assistant Hindi with effect from 14.08.2009, in sixth respondent school when he is not having minimum required educational qualification as contemplated under Private School Regulation Act, 1973 and Rules 1974. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Chelladurai Caldwell For Respondents : Mrs.S.Mythreya Chandru Special Government Pleader [R1 to R5] *****

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the official respondents to deal with the representation made by the petitioner wherein the petitioner has challenged the very appointment of the eighth respondent as PG Assistant (Hindi) and his continuation in that post. 2/4

2. Heard Mr.J.Chelladurai Caldwell, learned counsel for petitioner and Mrs.S.Mythreya Chandru, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5.

3. In the considered view of this Court, a writ petition can never be entertained for the sake of settling personal disputes. There seems to be some dispute between the petitioner and the eighth respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has given a representation to the official respondents to take action against the eighth respondent on the ground that the eighth respondent does not possess necessary qualification. It is not for the petitioner to raise this issue and the petitioner has no locus standi. If at all the eighth respondent does not possess the required qualification, it is for the educational authorities to deal with the same and the petitioner need not poke his nose in this issue. N.ANAND VENKATESH, J gm In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 3/4

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 11.09.2024 Index: yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order gm To 1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Director of School Education, Directorate of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

3.The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary) Directorate of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

4.The Chief Educational Officer, Chennai District, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

5.The District Educational Officer, Chennai - North, DEO Secondary North Office, Villivakkam, Chennai - 600 049.

4/4