← Library
Madras High CourtWP/39102/2003dismissed as infructuous

Annai Vailankanni High School, v. The Govt Of Tn Rep By Its

2017-08-16Honourable Mr Justice M.V. Muralidaran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:16.08.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN Writ Petition No.39102 of 2003 The Correspondent, Annai Vailar Kanni High School, Fr.Henrick Jose, S/o.C.S.Jose, Sastri Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai - 600 039.

.. Petitioner /versus/ 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 6.

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Saidapet, Chennai - 15.

4.The District Educational Officer (North), Egmore, Chennai -8.

5.M.K.Kalavathy, B.T.Assistant, K.T.C.T.Girls Higher Secondary School, Sowcarpet, Chennai - 79.

.. Respondents PRAYER:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents ending with 15.12.2003 in Na.Ka.No.8861/Aa3/2003 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same directing the respondents 1 to 4 to sanction a Science Graduate Teacher Post, instead of a history graduate teacher post to the petitioner school.

For Petitioners :M/s. S.M.Edward Stanley for M/s.Arul Mary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Respondents :M/s.K.Bhuvaneshwari Government Advocate for R1 to R4 ------

O R D E R

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents ending with 15.12.2003 in Na.Ka.No.8861/Aa3/2003 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same directing the respondents 1 to 4 to sanction a Science Graduate Teacher Post, instead of a history graduate teacher post to the petitioner school.

2. I heard M/s. S.M.Edward Stanley for M/s.Arul Mary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and M/s.K.Bhuvaneshwari, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

3. It is reported by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already got appointment in another school . Hence, the prayer sought for in the writ petition has become infructuous.

4. Recording the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar ub To 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George,Chennai - 9.

2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 6.

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Saidapet, Chennai - 15.

4.The District Educational Officer (North), Egmore, Chennai -8.

+ 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.58847 W.P.No.39102 of 2003 SR(CO) EU 11.09.17 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/