1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD).No.12815 of 2011 Shanthi ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6. 2.The Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 22.09.2011 within the stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rejendran For Respondents : Mrs.Bharathi Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner viz., Shanthi W/o. Jagadeesan has come forward with this petition, seeking writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent, The Director of School Education, Chennai to consider the representation dated 22.09.2011 within the stipulated time. 2.The petitioner has made a request to accommodate in any one of the vacancies in five Government High Schools in Thoothukudi District viz., Government High School, Ramanujam Pudur, Government High School, Vedanatham, Government High School, Epodumvendran, Municipal High School, Kovilpatti and Government Higher Secondary School, Kurukkusalai. 3.The case of the petitioner both in the representation as well as in the present writ petition is that there are five vacancies in the above mentioned schools but, the respondents while holding the counselling have not shown the vacancies in the counselling list. On the other hand, the second respondent has mentioned only 4 schools viz., Government Higher Secondary School, Mudivaithanathal, Government Higher Higher Secondary School, Kalugumalai, Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Kovilpatti and Government High School, Kaadalkudi. Since, G.O.(D)No.259 dated 09.09.2011 has given clear guidelines as to how the counselling should be conducted, the second respondent without following the conditions mentioned in the G.O.(D)No.259 dated 09.09.2011 viz., without preparing the proper vacancy list as on 01.06.2011, mentioning the available vacancies occurred from 01.06.2011 to 09.09.2011 has wrongly held a counselling on 20.09.2011, as a result, candidates were not able to avail the vacancy position. However, the petitioner after coming to know that there are vacancies and the same have not been shown in the counselling list has applied under Right to Information Act to furnish the details of the existing vacancies. In reply, the second respondent by letter dated 10.10.2011 informed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner's husband that no information was available in his office. Even the said communication was also denied. The correctness of the communication dated 10.10.2011 informing the petitioner that there was no information available in his office, also was disputed by the petitioner stating that there are vacancies still available but the respondents are keeping them in dark. On this basis, he prayed for direction to the first respondent to consider his representation dated 22.09.2011, wherein the petitioner requested for transfer to the Government Higher Secondary School, Utchinatham, Ramanathapuram District to the post of B.T.Assistant. This statement does not appear to be correct, because the communication dated 10.10.2011 shows that there is no vacancy available. But even if there are vacancies available as claimed by the petitioner, the second respondent by holding counselling on 20.09.2011 could have mentioned the available vacancies as per the G.O.(D)No.259 dated 09.09.2011. On the date of holding the counselling viz., 20.09.2011 when the respondent has not displayed in the counselling list, the vacancies available in the five Government Higher Schools mentioned above, the petitioner cannot say that the second respondent has refused to display the available vacancies in the counselling list. In fact, the letter issued by the second respondent to answer the petitioner's quarry dated 10.10.2011 also clearly shows that there was no information available in his office. In view of these facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in his prayer. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T & P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6. 2.The Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. +1 CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.39300 Ns W.P.(MD).No.12815 of 2011 11.11.2011 TR : 20.12.2011 : 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/