1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.10120 of 2011 P.Regina, Secretary, Hindu Harijan Primary School, North Karasery, Karungulam, Thoothukudi District. : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director of Elementary Education, Directorate of Elementary Education, College Road, Numgambakkam, Chennai-600 006. 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 3.Mr.A.Sundaram : Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.08.2011 and pass orders on it made in regard for taking action against the 3rd respondent and other erred officials within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Government Advocate ORDER Claiming himself to be the Secretary of Hindu Harijan Primary School, North Karasery, Karungulam, Thoothukudi District, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider her representation dated 01.08.2011 and take appropriate action against the third respondent and other officials of the education department. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that her father-in-law has established Hindu Harijan Primary School in Thoothukudi District in 1927. She was initially appointed as a teacher in the said school and subsequently, as Secretary of the Institution, which was also approved by the District Elementary Education Officer, Tuticorin District vide his proceedings in O.Mu.No.5049/A2/04 dated 27.07.2005. According to the petitioner, the third respondent, who was working as a teacher in the same school, has misused the blank papers containing the signatures of the petitioner and got approval of himself as Secretary, by influencing the then District Elementary Educational Officer and his writer by name Mr.Nallasmay, by paying bribe, for a period of three years i.e from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 03.08.2007 to 02.08.2010 vide by proceedings of the then 2nd respondent in O.Mu.No.4786/A2/07 dated 16.05.2008. 3.The petitioner has further contented that in order to grab the school property, the third respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.224/2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikuntam, as soon as he took charge of secretaryship and that the same was dismissed on 17.03.2010, against which, no appeal has been preferred thereafter. In order to avoid confusion in the affairs of the school, the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai, the first respondent, has passed an order in his proceedings O.Mu.No.33358/S3/10 dated 1.11.2010, for direct payment. 4.It is the further contention of the petitioner, that the third respondent, seeking a mandamus, directing the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin District, to approve his secretaryship, has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.13975 of 2010, before this Court. The petitioner has further submitted that the third respondent, by using his influence over the educational authorities, has obtained approval of his secretaryship on 15.03.2011. 5.When the above said writ petition came up for hearing on 27.06.2011, the same was disposed of on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that approval of secretaryship to the third respondent had already been granted on 15.03.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that even before the above said order of approval, he has sent a representation dated 21.05.2010 to the second respondent not to give approval of secretaryship to the third respondent. In spite of the same, the second respondent has given the approval and that itself shows the influence of the third respondent over the educational authorities. 6.The petitioner has further contended that when one of the interested members of the institution, Mr.R.Lakshmanan has sought for an information under the Right to Information Act, as to whether an order of approval has been granted to the third respondent and whether such order has been given effect to or not, the Public Information Officer (PA to DEEO), vide his reply in O.Mu.No.1236/A1/2011 dated 06.04.2011, has informed the said Mr.R.Lakshmanan that the approval of the secretaryship has not been given effect to. On the basis of the above said information, the petitioner has contended that when approval of secretaryship has not been given effect to, the third respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to interfere with the administration of the school. He has also made allegations that the third respondent is pressuring the present Headmistress to vacate from the post. In these circumstances, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 01.08.2011 by fax to the official respondents against the third respondent. Since the said representation has not been considered by the respondents, writ of mandamus is sought for. 7.Though the petitioner has alleged that the blank papers with her signatures kept by her have been misused by the third respondent and that the District Elementary Educational Officer and his writer Mr.Nallasamy have been influenced, perusal of the representation dated 21.05.2010 said to have been submitted by the petitioner to the second respondent, District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 and Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, does not disclose any allegations, of receipt of bribe. He has further alleged that certain documents have been created for the purpose of approval of secretaryship. 8.Material on record further discloses that the first respondent, the Director of Elementary Education, has passed an order in his proceedings in O.Mu.No.33358/S3/10 dated 01.11.2010 for direct payment. Subsequently, orders have been issued by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin, the second respondent herein, in O.Mu.No.4181/A1/2010 dated 15.03.2011 approving the secretaryship of the third respondent for the period between 03.08.2010 to 02.08.2013. Though the petitioner is aware of the abovesaid order, which is appealable, as stated in paragraph No.6 of the supporting affidavit, he has not chosen to challenge the same. Per contra, based on the information said to have been furnished by the Public Information Officer dated 06.04.2011 to one Mr.R.Lakshmanan claiming to be an interested person of the institution that the approval order given earlier, has not been given effect to, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 01.08.2011 to the first respondent for necessary action against the third respondent and the educational authorities. 9.It is the contention of the petitioner that though an order of approval is said to have been granted on 15.03.2011, it has not been given effect to, as informed by the Personal Assistant to the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin and, therefore the third respondent cannot interfere with the administration of the school. The information dated 06.04.2011 has not been enclosed in the typed set of papers, but brought to the notice of this Court. Considering the averments of the writ petitioner in the supporting affidavit and also of the proceedings dated 15.03.2011 of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin, granting approval of secretaryship, to the third respondent for the period between 03.08.2010 to 02.08.2013, and the subsequent information said to have been given to Mr.Lakshmanan, the representation of the writ petitioner dated 01.08.2011 required to be considered on the said aspect as to whether the order of approval has been given effect to or not, when approval of secretaryship has already been granted. It is not known, as to how an information is given to the effect that the approval of secretaryship granted to the third respondent is not in force. The Public Relation Officer under RTI Act in proceedings O.Mu.No.1236/A1/2011 dated 06.04.2011, has given a reply. 10.On the above facts and circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.08.2011 and pass a detailed order, by considering the observations made by this Court, in this order, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and any adverse order has to be passed against the 3rd respondent, the first respondent is directed to issue notice to the third respondent also, to avoid any complaint of violation of the principles of natural justice. 11.This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1.The Director of Elementary Education, Directorate of Elementary Education, College Road, Numgambakkam, Chennai-600 006. 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.30406 W.P.(MD)No.10120 of 2011 07.09.2011 vs RJ/22.9.11 4p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/