S.Kannan v. Royapuram

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 05.01.2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.23339 of 2009 andM.P.No.1 of 2009S.Kannan...Petitioner Vs.

The Correspondent-cum-Secretary, Vallal S.I. Alagarswamy Chettiar Hr.Sec. School, No.2 and 3, Adam Sahib Street, Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013.

The Chief Educational Officer, South Chennai, Chennai District.

The Joint Director/Higher Secondary, D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

R.Radha Bai ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying to issue a Writ of mandamus, directing therespondents 1 to 3 to forbear the fourth respondent from continuingas Headmistress in the first respondent school from 01.11.2009after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2009.(Prayer amended as per order dated 03.12.09 by VDPJ in M.P.No.2/09 in W.P.No.23339/09)For Petitioner : Mr.P.Chandrasekaran For Respondents : Ms.E.Renganayaki,G.A.For R2 and R3

O R D E RThe petitioner is a Senior Post Graduate Assistant working inthe first respondent school. The first respondent school is anaided private school covered by the provisions of the Tamil NaduPrivate Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. The petitioner was aspiring https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to become the Headmaster of the said school and was waiting for thefourth respondent to retire from service. According to thepetitioner, the date of birth of the fourth respondent was04.10.1951. Therefore, in the normal circumstances, she shouldretire from the post of Head Mistress on 31.10.2009. 2. Anticipating the vacancy, the first respondent school hadcalled for aspiring candidates for being considered for the saidpost. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petitionbefore this Court being W.P.No.21796 of 2009, challenging theinterview letter dated 19.10.2009 calling the petitioner to appearfor written and oral interview on 26.10.2009. This Court by anorder dated 26.10.2009 granted interim injunction for a period oftwo weeks. It is now claimed that the said order came to beextended subsequently also. 3. Be that as it may, the petitioner has now come forward tofile the second writ petition seeking for a declaration that thecontinuation of the fourth respondent as Head Mistress from01.11.2009 in the first respondent school is illegal. Subsequently, the petitioner took out an application in M.P.No.2 of 2009 foramending the prayer which was also allowed on 03.12.2009. As perthe amended prayer, the petitioner seeks for a direction torespondents 1 to 3 to forbear the fourth respondent from continuingas Head Mistress in the first respondent school from 01.11.2009after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2009. 4. Notice was taken by the learned Government Advocate forrespondents 2 and 3.

The grievance of the petitioner was that the fourthrespondent is continuing in service beyond superannuation. However, Mr.P.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner admits thatas per the Government order in existence, a Teacher or a Headmasteris entitled to continue in service till the end of the academicyear if the date of superannuation falls during the middle of theacademic year. This continuance is subject to two restrictionsviz., a candidate must be physically fit for the said continuanceand the character and conduct should be satisfactory.

In the present case, there is nothing on record to showthat the fourth respondent suffers from any such disqualification. Even otherwise, on the admission of the petitioner himself that thefourth respondent continues as a Headmistress beyond 01.11.2009only shows that the same can be done only with the approval of thefirst respondent and subject to the grant being released byrespondents 2 and 3. Therefore, when the fourth respondent isentitled to avail the service benefits given by the StateGovernment for continuing in service till the end of the academicyear and there is nothing stated which can disqualify her fromholding the said post, the present writ petition seeking to forbearher from continuing in service is misconceived. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

This Court in more than one cases has held that the benefitof extension of service till the end of the academic year isactually not an additional advantage to a teacher but only with aview to maintain the academic continuity in a school so that thestudents' academic work is not disturbed in the middle of theacademic year. When such is the case and the first respondent hasnot passed any order to deny the said benefits to the fourthrespondent, the petitioner cannot seek to dislodge the fourthrespondent by filing such a writ petition. It is seen from therecords that the petitioner's only anxiety is that he is at theverge of his retirement and before his retirement, he wants toget in to the said post. That issue is covered by other writpetition and therefore, this Court is not inclined to comment onhis eligibility to get such promotion.

In the light of the above, the writ petition ismisconceived and bereft of merits. Accordingly, the writ petitionstands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is closed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.svkiTo1.The Correspondent-cum-Secretary, Vallal S.I. Alagarswamy Chettiar Hr.Sec. School, No.2 and 3, Adam Sahib Street, Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013.2.The Chief Educational Officer, South Chennai, Chennai District. 3. The Joint Director/Higher Secondary, D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.1 CC To Government Pleader, SR.No.512 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1 CC To Mr.C.Johnson, Advocate, SR.No.617W.P.No.23339 of 2009MSM (CO)SS (19.01.2010)