← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/26326/2019ordered

J.Angeline v. The Chief Educational Officer

2019-12-11Honourable Mr Justice M.S. Ramesh2 pages

W.P.(MD) No.26326 of 2019 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.12.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.(MD) No.26326 of 2019 J.Angeline ... Petitioner /vs./ 1.The Chief Educational Officer, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

2.The District Educational Officer, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

3.The Correspondent, T.E.L.C Higher Secondary School, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to approve petitioner's appointment in the post of B.T.Assistant (Maths) based on the proposal sent by the 3rd respondent dated 04.09.2018 in the light of the G.O.(Ms.)No.270 dated 03.12.2019 within a timeframe as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Karuppasamy Government Advocate

ORDER

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. Though the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider the petitioner for approval of appointment as B.T.Assistant (Maths) based on the proposal sent by the 3rd respondent dated 04.09.2018 in the light of the G.O.(Ms.) No.270 dated 03.12.2019, in my view, such a decision is to be taken by the respondents and in case, the petitioner is aggrieved against such any decision, it would be appropriate to approach this Court.

3. It is now brought to the notice of the earlier order of this Court wherein the petitioner herein had filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.13088 of 2019 and this Court, by order dated 17.06.2019 had directed the second respondent therein to consider the petitioner's representation within a period of six (6) weeks. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P.(MD) No.26326 of 2019 Subsequently, the petitioner claims that the Government had passed a Government Order being G.O.(Ms.)No.270 dated 03.12.2019 that a person with B.E., B.Ed., qualification is eligible to teach from 6th Standard to 8th Standard, which G.O., has accrued to her favour. In this connection, the petitioner has also made representation on 04.12.2019. Though this Court had already directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's grievances in view of the subsequent passing of the G.O., it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the second respondent with a fresh representation ventilating her grievances.

4. In the light of the above observations, the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh representation to the second respondent in this regard and on receipt of such representation, the second respondent herein is directed to consider the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. This Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AD-II) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) rmk/sm To:

1.The Chief Educational Officer, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

2.The District Educational Officer, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

+1 CC to M/s.B.PRAHALAD RAVI, Advocate ( SR-104592[F] dated 12/12/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-104663[F] dated 12/12/2019 ) Order made in W.P.(MD)No.26326 of 2019 Dated:11.12.2019 al(CO) TR(10.01.2020) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2