The District Elementary Educational Officer, Office of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram v. Packiyalakshmi
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 13 Feb 2025
- Bench
- S SRIMATHYREV APL
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above said directions, the review application is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 r. 1
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. The writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.12542 of 2021 is filed by Packiyalakshmi for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to appoint the Special Officer to the management under the provision prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations)…
Judgment
REV.APLW(MD)No.24 of 2024 and W.P.(MD)No.12542 of 2021BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.02.2024CORAM :THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHYREV.APLW(MD)No.24 of 2024,W.P.(MD)No.12542 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.3547 of 2024REV.APLW(MD)No.24 of 2024:
The District Elementary Educational Officer, Office of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram.
The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Office of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram.… PetitionersVs.1.Packiyalakshmi2.The Secretary, Ambigapathi Hindu Nadar Middle School, N.Vellapatti, Naripaiyur Post, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.… RespondentsMemorandum of Grounds of Review Application under Section 114 read with Order 47 with Rule 1 of C.P.C., to review the order dated 27.02.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.12198 of 2017.Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW(MD)No.24 of 2024 and W.P.(MD)No.12542 of 2021 For Petitioners ::Mr.V.Om PrakashGovernment AdvocateFor R1::Mr.G.Karthickfor M/s.Lajapathi Roy and AssociatesFor R2::Mr.S.ChellapandianW.P.(MD)No.12542 of 2021:R.Packiyalakshmi ... PetitionerVs.1.The State Represented by its Director, Directorate of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai - 6.2.The Joint Director (Aided Schools), Office of the Joint Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai – 6.
The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Mandabam at Ramanathapuram.
The District Elementary Educational Officer, Office of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram.
The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Office of the Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District.
The Secretary, Ambigapathi Hindu Nadar Middle School, N.Vellapatti, Naripaiyur Post, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW(MD)No.24 of 2024 and W.P.(MD)No.12542 of 20217.Sundaram, Secretary, Ambigapathi Hindu Nadar Middle School, N.Vellapatti, Naripaiyur Post, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. ... RespondentsPRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondents Nos.1 to 4 to appoint the Special Officer to the Respondent No.6's School namely Ambigapathi Hindu Nadar Middle School situated at Vellapatti, Narippaiyur Post, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, under the provision prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations), Act, 1973 by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 14.12.2019 and 27.03.2021.For Petitioner: Mr.G.Karthik for M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy and AssociatesFor R1 to R5: Mr.V.Om Prakash Government Advocate For R6: Mr.S.Chellapandian*****COMMON ORDERThe present review application in Rev.
AplW.(MD)No.24 of 2024 is filed by the Education Department against the order, dated 27.02.2023, passed in W.P.(MD)No.12198 of 2017. The writ petition was filed inter alia praying for writ of Certiorari to quash the charge memo dated 12.04.2017. Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW(MD)No.24 of 2024 and W.P.(MD)No.12542 of 20212. The writ petitioner was serving in the Ambigapathi Hindu Nadar Middle School as a Secondary Grade Teacher, subsequently promoted as Headmaster. While in service, disciplinary proceedings was initiated and the writ petitioner was placed under suspension. After perusing the entire records and facts, this Court had come to the conclusion that the school had suspended the writ petitioner for a period of two months, thereafter the school had submitted a letter dated 10.06.2017 seeking permission to extend the suspension for another two months. However, the education department had claimed the said letter was submitted to a different authority and not to the concerned authority.
This Court rejected the said contention of the education department, since the fact remains that the school had submitted a letter. And if the letter was submitted to different authority the same ought to be forwarded to the concerned authority. In such circumstances, the review applicants ought to have taken the letter on record and ought to have passed an order by granting permission to extend the suspension. But the review applicants failed to do so. 3. Therefore, this Court had come to the conclusion that the writ petitioner is entitled to salary. Taking note of the fact that the salary ought to be paid by the government, this Court restricted the same to 50% of the salary. Against that portion of granting 50% salary the present review application is filed. The review applicant Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW(MD)No.24 of 2024 and W.P.(MD)No.12542 of 2021had raised various grounds, but all the grounds were considered by this Court in the writ petition itself.
However, the contention of the review applicant is that the said 50% salary would cause financial constraints to the government. Further the same would become precedent and it would amount to opening flood gate. 4. After hearing the submissions of both the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the amount if quantified to some reasonable amount the same would meet the ends of justice. And the entire litigation shall be ended. Therefore, the said amount is restricted Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only). The review applicants are directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) to the writ petitioner. 5. As far as voluntary retirement is concerned the writ petitioner had already submitted her willingness for voluntary retirement vide letter dated 23.07.2024. The said letter was forwarded to the District Educational Officer, Paramakudi. On receipt of the same the DEO had directed to submit certain particulars and also directed the writ petitioner to submit the letter through proper channel i.e. through Block Educational Officer.
Operative part
Therefore, the writ petitioner and the school shall resubmit the letter dated 23.07.2024 through Block Education Officer along with the particulars. Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW(MD)No.24 of 2024 and W.P.(MD)No.12542 of 2021On receipt of the same, the entire process of voluntary retirement with monetary benefits shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the resubmission of the letter through BDO. Thereafter, the review applicants are directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) to the writ petitioner within a period of four weeks therefrom.6. With the above said directions, the review application is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
The writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.12542 of 2021 is filed by Packiyalakshmi for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to appoint the Special Officer to the management under the provision prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations), Act, 1973 by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 14.12.2019 and 27.03.2021. The said writ petition is filed by the employee Packiyalakshmi, since the school failed to adhere to the orders of the department. This Court is not inclined to entertain the said writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.12542 of 2021 and hence the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW(MD)No.24 of 2024 and W.P.(MD)No.12542 of 20218. Post the cases on 20.03.2025 for reporting compliance. Index : yes/no 13.02.2024Neutral citation : yes/noTmgPage 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW(MD)No.24 of 2024 and W.P.(MD)No.12542 of 2021To1.The Director, Directorate of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai - 6.2.The Joint Director (Aided Schools), Office of the Joint Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai – 6.3.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Mandabam at Ramanathapuram. 4. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Office of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram.5. The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Office of the Additioanl Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District. Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW(MD)No.24 of 2024 and W.P.(MD)No.12542 of 2021S.SRIMATHY,J.Tmg REV.APLW(MD)No.24 of 2024and W.P.(MD)No.12542 of 202113.02.2024Page 9 of 9
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above said directions, the review application is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — r. 1; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 13 Feb 2025. The bench was S SRIMATHYREV APL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.