Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2005 (MAD)

K. S. Rajendran v. Director of School Education

2024-08-19

ABDUL QUDDHOSE

body2024
ORDER : Abdul Quddhose, J. PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned communication on the file of the fourth respondent addressed to the third respondent dated 21.11.2016 and the consequential impugned order in O.Mu.No. 5043/Aa2/2016 dated 08.12.2016, on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to provide all the service and monetary benefits due to the petitioner on account of the service rendered in the post of Head Master from 01.12.2003 till the date of retirement ie., 31.05.2015 within the time stipulated by this Court. The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated 21.11.2016 and the consequential order dated 08.12.2016, passed by the third respondent, rejecting his request for approving his appointment as Head Master of the fourth respondent school for the period from 01.12.2003 to 31.05.2015. 2. According to the petitioner, during the aforesaid period, the fourth respondent management was not functioning due to some internal disputes amongst the Committee members and the fourth respondent school was under direct management. According to him, under those circumstances, since he was the acting Head Master for the fourth respondent school for the aforesaid period, he made a representation to the third respondent for approving his appointment as the Head Master of the fourth respondent school for the period from 01.12.2003 till 31.05.2015. According to the petitioner, wrongly without considering the fact that the fourth respondent school was under direct management, the third respondent under the impugned order has rejected the petitioner's request for approving his appointment as Head Master of the school for the period from 01.12.2003 to 31.05.2015. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent reiterating the contents of the impugned order passed by the third respondent. However, as seen from the impugned order, the fact that the fourth respondent school was under direct management of the official respondents for the period from 01.12.2003 till 31.05.2015, the period for which the petitioner had sought for approval of his appointment as Head Master has not been considered under the impugned order passed by the third respondent. However, as seen from the impugned order, the fact that the fourth respondent school was under direct management of the official respondents for the period from 01.12.2003 till 31.05.2015, the period for which the petitioner had sought for approval of his appointment as Head Master has not been considered under the impugned order passed by the third respondent. 4.Learned Counsel for the fourth respondent would now submit that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the direct management of the official respondents over the fourth respondent school has been withdrawn and presently, the Managing Committee members of the fourth respondent school are managing the fourth respondent school. 5.Since the contentions of the petitioner as raised in this writ petition namely that during the period from 01.12.2003 till 31.05.2015, for which the petitioner had sought for approval of his appointment as a Head Master of the fourth respondent school was on a direct management has not been considered under the impugned orders, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order has been passed by total non-application of mind to the fact that the fourth respondent school was under direct management during the period from 01.12.2003 to 31.05.2015. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the third respondent has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 6.In the result, the impugned communication of the fourth respondent dated 21.11.2016 and the consequential impugned order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the third respondent are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. The third respondent is directed to pass final orders based on this order within a period of twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after taking into consideration the fact that the fourth respondent school was under direction management for the period from 01.12.2003 till 31.05.2015. 7.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.