1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1371 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 P.Mangayarkarasi ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli. 2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Ambasamudram, Tiruneveli. 3.The Secretary, Perumal Thevar Memorial Primary School, Kakanallur, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents/ Respondents Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 16.09.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.10576 of 2011. Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of suspension passed by the third respondent dt.07.09.2011 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the service as Headmaster incharge. For Appellant : Mr.H.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar, 1 & 2 Government Advocate. JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] This writ appeal is preferred challenging the order of the writ court, dated 16.09.2011, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of suspension, date 07.09.2011, passed by the 3rd respondent. 2.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order of suspension is valid only for a period of two months and thereafter, the same could be extended for a further period of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 two months, as per proviso to Section 22(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (in short "the Act")and as far as the case on hand is concerned, the suspension was extended for a further period of two months by the very same third respondent, who is not competent authority to extend the suspension, and therefore the said suspension order is vitiated. 3.We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record, including the order of the writ court. 4.The fact remains that originally the appellant was placed under suspension by the order, dated 07.09.2011, passed by the third respondent. It is pertinent to note that as per provisions under Section 22(3)(b) of the Act, the said suspension order is valid only for a period of two months. However, as per proviso to the said section, only competent authority is entitled to extend the suspension for a further period of two months. Now, as on date, the original suspension order is not in force and it has already expired and the extended order of suspension was passed on 07.11.2011, subsequent to the disposal of the writ petition filed by the appellant on 16.09.2011. Therefore, that gives rise to separate cause of action and it is open to the appellant to challenge the same in the manner known to law. 5.With the above observation, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Connected MP.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is also closed. However, it is open to the appellant to raise all factual and legal points, in her attempt to challenge the extended suspension order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli. 2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Ambasamudram, Tiruneveli. +1cc to Mr.H.Arumugam, Advocate, Sr.No.42867 Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.1371/2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:02.12.2011 gb SMA/15.12.2011/4C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/