Madras High CourtWP(MD)/9066/2023dismissed

Augustin.D v. The Director Of Elementary Education

2023-04-20Honourable Mr Justice C.V. Karthikeyan8 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20.04.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P(MD).No.9066 of 2023 and WMP(MD)No.8213 of 2023 D.Augustin ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai.

2. The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District, Sena. Vena. Govt. Hr. Sec. School Campus, Thoothukudi.

3. The Chief Educational Officer, Tenkasi District, ICI Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Tenkasi.

4. The District Educational Officer (Elementary), Kovilpatti Educational District, VOC Govt. Hr. Sec. School Campus, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

5. The District Educational Officer (Elementary), Sankarankovil Educational District, Gomathi Govt. Hr.Sec. School Campus, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.

1/8

6. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, VOC Govt. Hr.Sec. School Campus, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

7. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Ottapidaram, Tuticorin District.

8. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kayathar, Thoothukudi District.

9. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kuruvikulam, Tenkasi District.

10.P.Subash Babu Singh 11.The District Registrar, Tirunelveli District, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

... Respondents Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 9 from recognizing the 10th respondent as correspondent of the schools run by the society viz., The Kovilpatti Tamil Baptist Schools Association, without a Form VII accepted by the 11th respondent, in accordance with law by considering petitioner's representation, dated 25.02.2023. For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For R1 to R9 :Mr.M.Ramesh Government Advocate For R10 :Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy Senior Counsel For R11 :Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate 2/8

ORDER

The writ petitioner has the habit of going over to Court every time any individual is appointed as a Correspondent of the Kovilpatti Tamil Baptist Schools Association.

2.The petitioner had filed WP(MD)No.5556 of 2020 against M.Lal Bahadur Kennedy, who was shown as the third respondent therein, and the approval of the third respondent as Correspondent of said Association was in question. It was informed therein that a new Correspondent would be appointed. That petition was disposed on 03.01.2023. 3.The petitioner had also filed WP(MD)No.1207 of 2023, wherein, he had again questioned the appointment of Correspondent of M.Lal Bahadur Kennedy, who was shown as respondent No.10 in that particular writ petition. That writ petition was disposed by an order of this Court, dated 23.01.2023, wherein, the learned counsel for the said M.Lal Bahadur Kennedy undertook that a new Correspondent would be appointed within a period of four weeks. The learned Judge stated that the said 10th respondent therein should adhere to the undertaking given by him. 3/8

4.The petitioner had also filed a Review Application in Rev.Aplw(MD)No.49 of 2023, questioning the order in WP(MD)No.1207 of 2023, mentioned above and seeking revisitation of the said order. The said review application was dismissed as withdrawn. 5.The present writ petition has been filed by the very same petitioner, now questioning the appointment of the tenth respondent, who is now P.Subash Babu Singh and fortunately, not M.Lal Bahadur Kennedy, who was the respondent in several aforementioned writ petitions. 6.The petitioner now seeks a mandamus that his representation should be considered and the 10th respondent should not function as Correspondent.

7.The petitioner has a serious grievance about the post of Correspondent. I really wonder, what his problem is. If he permits the Correspondent to work and function as Correspondent and after some reasonable time, he can point out the acts of omission and commission done 4/8

by the said person. The petitioner is questioning the appointment, even before the individual has taken charge as Correspondent. 8.The writ Court cannot be a platform for verify the personal grievances of the petitioner. It is also seen that the petitioner has not impleaded the Association as a respondent in the writ petition. If he had done so, notice would have been issued and the members of the said Association can enquire about the indulgence of the petitioner moving around every Court questioning the appointment of every person as Correspondent. Since the Association is not a respondent, orders were passed however, leading to the filing of another writ petition and also leading to the filing of a review application.

9.I am also informed by the learned counsel who appears for the respondents 1 to 9 that the petitioner had also filed O.S.No.117 of 2020, which is now pending before District Court, Tirunelveli. 10.The petitioner could concentrate on doing some social work rather than questioning the appointment of the Correspondent. 5/8

11.The petitioner can always seek necessary relief in one litigation. He need not strain himself by filing one writ petition after another writ petition. I am not impressed with the reasons stated. 12.Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20.04.2023 NCS :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No PNM 6/8