1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:10.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD).No.2780 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Mrs.O.N.Hemalatha : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari. 2.The Corporate Manager, Corporate Management of Roman Catholic Schools, "THEDAL", No.10/8-46C, Bridge Ward, Near Fire Station, Kuzhithurai – 629 163, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Correspondent, St. Mary's Higher Secondary School, Melpalai, Kuzhithurai – 629 163, Kanyakumari District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of suspension in No.EDN/K/CM/F, C88/113/2011, dated 07.03.2011 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.V.Rajasekaran Special Government Pleader O R D E R Mr.V.Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order of suspension passed by the second respondent dated 07.03.2011. It is not for this Court to revoke the order of suspension and the petitioner can make a request to the second respondent to revoke the order of suspension by sending a representation. It appears that the allegation made against the petitioner is a trivial in nature. However, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 it is for the second respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for revoking the order of suspension. That apart, the petitioner seems to be teaching English and Social Science for the standards from 6 to 10. In view of the ensuing examination for the tenth standard, the second respondent has to consider at least, in the interest of the students, to revoke the order of suspension. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the subsistence allowance was not paid to the petitioner. The respondents are bound to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner. 4. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to pass the following order: (i) The petitioner is directed to send a representation to the second respondent to revoke the order of suspension passed against her, within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the said representation on merits and in accordance with law, considering the above observation made by this Court, within a period of one week thereafter; (ii) The subsistence allowance shall be paid to the petitioner forthwith. 5. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs. SML Sd/- Assistant Registrar[Crl side] /True copy/ To Sub Assistant Registrar The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari. +1 cc to M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate SR.No.5903. Order made in W.P.(MD).No.2780 of 2011 Dated:10.03.2011 2P/3C RPB 11.03.2011[I.T.] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/