← Library
Madras High CourtWP/18229/2017disposed of

G.Gnanagandarvan v. The District Educational

2019-11-04Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.11.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.18229 of 2017 And W.M.P.No.19817 of 2017 G.Gnanagandarvan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai.

2.The Manager, RCM Schools, Catholic Ayar Illam, No.34, Anna Salai, (Officers Line), Vellore - 632 001.

3.J.Prakash ... Respondents Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation dated 26.06.2017 of the petitioner with regard to cancellation of appointment of the third respondent as physical education director in the second respondent school and the direct the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground as Physical education director.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Murali For Respondents : Ms.P.Kavitha for R1 Government Advocate M/s.A.Arul Mary for R2

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation dated 26.06.2017 of the petitioner with regard to cancellation of appointment of the third respondent as Physical Education Director in the second respondent School and to direct the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground as Physical Education Director.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that though the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the appointment of the third respondent as Physical Education Director, now the petitioner do not want to agitate the appointment of the third respondent, however, the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the next selection process to be conducted by the second respondent and it would suffice to direct the second respondent to give priority to the petitioner in the next selection process. To that extent, the learned counsel also made endorsement in the petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that in future selection process, the petitioner will be given priority and as per the petitioner's qualification, his candidature will be considered. 4.Recording the same and in view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar pri To 1.The District Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai.

+1cc to Mr.P.Murali, Advocate SR.No.92062 +1cc to M/s.Father Xavier Associates, Advocate SR.No.91087 W.P.No.18229 of 2017 And W.M.P.No.19817 of 2017 NRL(CO) GMY(04/12/2019) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/