1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)NO.10034 of 2011 R.Girija ... Petitioner Versus 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. 2.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruppananathal, Thanjavur District. 3.The Secretary, Gandhi Aided Primary School, Chozhiyavilagam, Thiruppanandhal Range, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to implement the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.06774/A4/2010 dated 31.05.2011 read with the proceedings of the second respondent bearing No.Na.Ka.No.1187/A1/2011, dated 27.06.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For R -1 & R - 2 : Mr.M.Alagathevan, Special Government Pleader. For R - 3 : No Appearance. O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking a direction to the third respondent to implement the orders of the first respondent. 2. Heard Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Alagathevan, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. Service of notice on the third respondent is already completed in September 2011 itself. The third respondent has not entered appearance through counsel. Their name is printed in the cause list. There is no representation for them. 3. The petitioner is working in the third respondent school, which is an aided primary school. The post of Headmaster in the third respondent school fell vacant on and from 01.06.2009. The third respondent issued an order dated 31.05.2009 promoting the petitioner as Headmistress. A proposal was also sent by the third respondent to the first respondent for approval of the order of promotion. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. But the proposal was returned by the first respondent, on the ground that it was incomplete. Thereafter, the third respondent failed to resubmit the proposal. However, the first respondent passed an order dated 06.12.2010, directing the third respondent to pay the salary of the petitioner including the arrears of increment. But the third respondent failed to carry out the directions. 5. In the meantime, the third respondent school was brought directly under the control of the first respondent, by an order dated 07.12.2010, due to the inter-se dispute among the members of the committee of the Management. Therefore, the salary of the teacher were paid directly by the second respondent. 6. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.5109 of 2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 28.04.2011, directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders. In pursuance of the said order, the first respondent issued direction in his proceedings dated 31.05.2011, directing the third respondent to promote the petitioner with effect from 01.06.2009. The second respondent also issued another communication dated 27.06.2011 to implement the said order. But the third respondent failed to implement these orders, forcing the petitioner to come up with the above writ petition. 7. In the counter filed by the respondents 1 and 2, they have concurred with the contentions of the petitioner that she is entitled to be appointed as Headmistress with effect from 01.06.2009. In other words, the proposal originally sent by the third respondent actually stands approved by the respondents 1 and 2. In such circumstances, it is not open to the third respondent to refuse to permit the petitioner to function as the Headmistress. 8. It appears that the third respondent issued a communication dated 01.08.2011 informing the petitioner that they have already filed an appeal against the earlier orders. But till date there has been no stay of any order passed either by the respondents 1 and 2 or by this Court. As a matter of fact the original proposal to promote the petitioner itself emanated only from the third respondent. Hence, in the absence of any order by any Court, it is not open to the third respondent to prevent the petitioner from functioning as Headmistress, especially when this school is an aided school. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the third respondent to allow the petitioner to function as the Headmistress in the school with all consequential benefits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. 2.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruppananathal, Thanjavur District. Vsm SR : 19.12.2011 : 3p/3c W.P.(MD)NO.10034 of 2011 10.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/