Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2592 (MAD)

T. Sanjeeva Rao v. Director of School Education

2014-08-13

S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to treat the endorsed copy of the letter dated 29.9.2005 from this petitioner to the first respondent as an appeal to the first respondent or alternatively direct the first respondent to receive a formal fresh appeal exactly on the lines of the appeal dated 29.9.2005 for disposal of the same as directed in the order dated 27.3.2012 in Writ Appeal No.574 of 2010. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 29.9.2005 and the same has to be disposed of. The case of the petitioner is that the appeal was pending before the first respondent and that one D.Rajendran, the then C.E.O. had removed the said appeal from the file and hence the petitioner sent another copy on 29.5.2012. 3. The contention of the first respondent is that the above said appeal cannot be accepted since it is only an endorsement of his representation to School and it was denied that D.Rajendran, the then C.E.O., was responsible for the disappearance of appeal from the office records. 4. The petitioner also drew the attention of this Court of the counter of the Director of School Education filed in W.P.No.13045 of 2006 to paragraph 10 and the relevant portion is extracted below: “10. The petitioner did not send any application to the departmental authority. Secondly, the dismissal of the petitioner was not approved by the District Educational Officer, Chennai South, till date. The petitioner neither turned up for duties nor made any request to the management. The petitioner simply filed this writ petition. It is further submitted that the employee was dismissed by the employer. The approval for the same is a must under the rules. The dismissal was not approved by the competent authority. The second respondent has not taken further action to reinstate the petitioner or to pay salary from their own funds. It is respectfully submitted that obtaining sanction and approval for the removal/dismissal from the first respondent is not mandatory. Obtaining prior permission to dismiss/removal/terminate the services of a teacher is a pre-condition for teachers employed in Non-Minority Aided Schools. It is not applicable as for the Minority Schools are concerned.” 5. It is respectfully submitted that obtaining sanction and approval for the removal/dismissal from the first respondent is not mandatory. Obtaining prior permission to dismiss/removal/terminate the services of a teacher is a pre-condition for teachers employed in Non-Minority Aided Schools. It is not applicable as for the Minority Schools are concerned.” 5. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent is only a formal party in this writ petition and in case the appeal is taken up on file, they should also be given a chance to make their representation before the authority concerned. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submitted that the appeal dated 29.9.2005 is not available in the file and on seeing the same, it is only a representation to the school and the last para of the representation shows that a copy of the same has been forwarded to the first respondent. However, he stated that as there is no copy in the file, the petitioner can serve a copy of the said representation to enable the concerned authorities to pass appropriate orders. 6. Without going into the merits of the issue involved in this writ petition, it is open to the writ petitioner and the second respondent to put forth all the points available to them, including the points raised in the writ petition, quoting paragraph 10 of the counter, which is extracted supra, to the authorities concerned, who shall hear the matter and pass appropriate orders, preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation from the petitioner. Since the copy of the representation dated 29.9.2005 is available in the typed set of papers, a copy of the same may be forwarded by the learned Government Advocate to the authorities concerned on issuing notice to the writ petitioner and the second respondent, after complying with the principles of natural justice, a detailed order may be passed by the first respondent. It is open to both the parties to raise additional grounds, if required, and also file their written submissions. 7. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.