P.Sangeetha v. B.Chandramohan Ias

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN L.P.A(MD)No.5 of 2025 P.Sangeetha ...Appellant/Petitioner Vs.

B.Chandramohan, I.A.S., The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Fort ST.George Chennai-600 009.

...Respondent/Respondent

PRAYER:- Letters Patent Appeal filed under Section 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order passed in Cont.P(md)No.2120 of 2025 dated 14.08.2025 by this Court.

For Appellant : Mr.N.Marimuthu For Respondent : Mr.D.Sasikumar Additional Government Pleader 1/5

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.) This contempt appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned single Judge has closed the contempt petition regarding the compliance of the order, dated 21.04.2025.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned single Judge was misled by the respondent that the order of the Court complied with, whereas the proceedings, dated 21.07.2025 was passed pursuant to the direction of this Court is not by the respondent herein, who is the Principal Secretary to the Government, but by the Director of Public Libraries, Chennai. The Registrar had entertained a doubt about the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, when the contempt petition was closed without further action.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.10557 of 2025 was disposed of by this Court on 21.04.2025 to consider the representation of the 2/5

petitioner, dated 29.01.2025 and pass appropriate orders regarding the appointment and due seniority of the writ petitioner. The Mandamus was issued to the first respondent, viz., the Principal Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, Chennai, to consider the petitioner's representation. Whereas the proceedings, regarding the representation, was not issued by the first respondent, but by the second respondent in the writ petition. Therefore, it is not due compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

4.This Court, on perusing the proceedings passed by the Director of Public Libraries, Chennai, we find that the proceedings have been passed pursuant to the direction of this Court and in reference to the High Court direction. It is not the case of the appellant that the second respondent in the writ petition, is not incompetent to pass the order. The only grievance is that the first respondent viz., the Principal Secretary to Government, ought to have passed the order, the Director of Public Libraries ought not have passed the order on his representation. This Court finds that the cases cannot be an appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent or invoke the bar under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

3/5

5.In view of the above, this Letter Patent Appeal is not maintainable and hence, the same stands closed. [G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 03.12.2025 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes Ns To B.Chandramohan, I.A.S., The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Fort ST.George Chennai-600 009.

4/5

DR.

G. JAYACHANDRAN , J.

AND K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

Ns L.P.A(MD)No.5 of 2025 03.12.2025 5/5