Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 127 (MAD)

M. Vaithegi v. Vibhunayar

2015-01-09

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2015
Judgment 1. The above contempt petition is filed by complaining that the order passed in W.P(MD)No.13043 of 2013 dated 21.01.2014 has not been complied. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/contemnors. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even though the Teacher Eligibility Test Certificate was issued to the petitioner, as per the direction issued by this Court, she was not selected and appointed to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and therefore, the order passed by this Court is violated. 4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that this Court has only directed to issue the Teacher Eligibility Test Certificate and thereafter, to consider the case of the petitioner for the respective appointment in the category and thus, after issuing the Teacher Eligibility Test Certificate to the petitioner, she was found not eligible for appointment to the Secondary Grade Teacher post, as she does not fall within the selection zone. Thus, he submitted that an order has been passed on 26.06.2014 in compliance with the order passed by this Court. 5. A perusal of the order passed in writ petition would show that the respondents therein were directed to issue Teachers Eligibility Certificate to the petitioner, which is admittedly issued to the petitioner and there is no quarrel about the same. Insofar as the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the appointment is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader, there was no positive direction and on the other hand, only a direction was issued to consider the case of the petitioners' respective appointment in the category. If the petitioner herein is not selected and appointed to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, it is for her to challenge the order dated 26.06.2014 in a manner known to law and she cannot maintain the contempt petition by contending that the order is violated. 6. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order in R.C.No.5050/TET/2014 dated 26.09.2014 in a manner known to law. 6. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order in R.C.No.5050/TET/2014 dated 26.09.2014 in a manner known to law. Needless to say that the dismissal of this contempt petition does not mean that the claim made by the petitioner to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher is in any way rejected by this Court as the same has to be considered and decided in a proceedings where the petitioner challenges the order dated 26.09.2014. The respondents are directed to serve the copy of the order dated 26.09.2014 to the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.