1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16/06/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD) No.5071 of 2011 C.Sundarvelraj ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary, Hindu Middle School Suppanur, Keelapavur Zone, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Keelapavur Zone, Tirunelveli District. 3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned records of the third respondent in Moo.Mu.No.4549/A3/2010 dated 17.09.2010 quash the same and direct the respondents to issue order for direct payment of salary to the school teaching staff. For petitioner ...Mr.F.Deepak For Respondents .. For R1 Mr.M.LakshmiShankar For R2& R3 Mr.B.Pugalendhi Spl.Govt.Pleader O R D E R Though an application for stay alone is listed before me, with consent of all, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. Challenging the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 17.09.2010, approving secretaryship of the first respondent for the Hindu Middle School, the present writ petition is filed. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent school was founded by his grandfather one Thiru. K.Thirumalai Muthu. He died on 19.05.1999 leaving behind his wife, three sons and three daughters. He is the son of the second daughter Chandrakantha. After the death of the grandfather, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 first respondent fraudulently appointed himself as the Correspondent/Secretary of the school run by his grandfather. He has filed a suit for partition along with his sisters in O.S.No.386 of 2008. He has also filed another suit in O.S.No.589 of 2008 seeking for permanent injunction restraining the first respondent herein from in any way making appointments by way of creating posts without the approval of the other legal heirs including himself. The said suits are pending. Injunction has been refused by the trial Court and hence an appeal in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Principal Sub court, Tenkasi is filed. The said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was also dismissed and hence the petitioner preferred a Civil Revision petition before this Court. The said Civil Revision Petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit at the earliest and the parties are directed to maintain status quo. While so, the Secretary of the School has applied for secretaryship and the third respondent has passed an order in his favour. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said impugned order of the third respondent dated 17.09.2010. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that when this Court has granted status quo in the Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner, the third respondent ought not to have passed the impugned order and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. No doubt in Civil Revision Petition No.1504 of 2010, by an order dated 16.08.2010, this Court while disposing of the same, directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo. Paragraph 6 of the order is usefully extracted hereunder: “6.In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below are confirmed. The Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi is strictly directed to dispose of Original Suit No.589 of 2008 before the end of October 2010 and report the same to the Registry without fail. However to avoid future litigation as well as proceedings both parties are strictly directed to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit purely on merits without paying much adherence to previous orders. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitioner is dismissed.” However, it seems the suit in O.S.No.589 of 2008 that has been filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 30.10.2010. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that an appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.589 of 2008 by the learned District Munsif, Tenkasi. However, no stay has been granted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. In view of the above stated position, I am of the considered view that the petitioner, who claims right over the school, did not succeed before the Civil court. In such circumstances, the order passed by the third respondent approving the Secretaryship of the first respondent cannot be faulted. As and when the petitioner succeeds before the Appellate Court, it is needless to say that he can approach the third respondent for modification of the said order. Taking such view, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the third respondent, as and when he succeeds before the Appellate Court. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accts.) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Keelapavur Zone, Tirunelveli District. 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli +1cc to Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, Advocate Sr.No.18667 +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No.18814 rr ssk/24.06.2011 /5c-3p/- W.P.(MD) No.5071 of 2011 16.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/