1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal(MD)No.1502 of 2011 Joy Selvakumari ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director of School Education,Chennai - 600 006. 2.The Chief Educational Officer,Chief Educational Office, Collectorate Campus,Karur. ... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 23.09.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.10866 of 2011. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 06.06.2011, to the effect of granting incentive increment for possessing M.Phil., Degree in the light of G.O.Ms.No.1170 dated 20.12.1993 and G.O.Ms.No.194 dated 10.10.2006. For Appellant : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan For Respondents : Mr.V.Pandi,Government Advocate JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL, J) Mr.V.Pandi, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 2.By mutual consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, the writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal, at the stage of admission itself. 3.The appellant has preferred this Writ Appeal, challenging the order of the writ Court, dated 23.09.2011, made in W.P.(MD). No.10866 of 2011, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, seeking for the relief of a direction to the second respondent herein to dispose of her representation, dated 06.06.2011, for granting incentive for possessing M.Phil., Degree, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.1170, dated 20.12.1993 and G.O.Ms.No.194, dated 10.10.2006, within a stipulated time. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that though the appellant has come forward with a limited prayer, the writ Court has went deep into the matter on merits and ultimately dismissed the very writ petition itself. It is contended that in view of the order passed by the writ Court, the appellant has been deprived of her opportunity to put forward her case and her entitlement to seek the benefit of two G.Os. viz., G.O.Ms.No.1170, dated 20.12.1993 and G.O.Ms.No.194, dated 10.10.2006. Therefore, it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 is contended that the writ Court order is liable to be set aside and a direction may be given to the second respondent herein to consider the representation of the appellant, dated 06.06.2011, in the light of the above said two G.Os. 5.Heard the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It is contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the writ Court. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the writ Court has rightly appreciated the matter on merits, holding that the appellant is not entitled to seek the relief of benefits of the two G.Os. relied by her. 6.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the order passed by the writ Court, dated 23.09.2011 made in W.P.(MD). No.10866 of 2011. 7.At the outset, it is to be stated that the appellant has preferred the writ petition only with a limited prayer of seeking the relief of a direction to the second respondent herein to consider her representation, dated 06.06.2011, in the light of the two G.Os., as stated above. However, the writ Court has went deep into the matter on merits and ultimately dismissed the writ petition. We are of the considered view that the writ Court ought to have directed the second respondent herein to consider the representation of the appellant, by affording opportunity and that too, in the light of the above said two G.Os, relied by the appellant herein. 8.In view of the same, we are constrained to set aside the order of the writ Court. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order passed by the writ Court, dated 23.09.2011, in W.P.(MD). No.10866 of 2011 is hereby set aside. Consequently, without going into the merits of the representation of the appellant, dated 06.06.2011 and without expressing any view on such representation, we direct the second respondent herein to consider the representation of the appellant, dated 06.06.2011, by affording opportunity to her by giving notice and also in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.1170, dated 20.12.1993 and G.O.Ms.No.194, dated 10.10.2006 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director of School Education,Chennai - 600 006. 2.The Chief Educational Officer,Chief Educational Office, Collectorate Campus, Karur. +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 45385 Judgment In W.A.(MD)No.1502 of 2011 gcg/sma/23.1.2012/4c/2p Dated:21.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/