IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :10.08.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P. NO.524 OF 2009 M.J.Sheeba .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Director of School Education College Road Chennai – 600 006. 2.The Chief Educational Officer Nagercoil Kanyakumari District. 3.The District Educational Officer Kuzhithurai Kanyakumari District. 4.The Concordia Higher Secondary School Poottethi Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 27.11.2008 and consequently to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Grade B.T.Assistant in the 4th respondent School. For Petitioner : M/s.K.Ravichandrabaabu For R-1 to R-3 : Ms.Dhakshayani Reddy Government Advocate For R-4 : Ms.P.Mahalakshmi O R D E R Even though the prayer in the writ petition is for a direction against the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.11.2008 and consequently to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Grade B.T.Assistant in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fourth respondent School, some relevant facts are to be stated for the disposal of this writ petition. 2.Heard Mr.K.Ravichandrabaabu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Ms.Dhakshayani Reddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Ms.P.Mahalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 3.The writ petitioner is stated to have been appointed as a Junior Grade B.T.Assistant in the fourth respondent School on 01.06.2005 in a vacancy which arose out of the retirement of one Arumugam. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the petitioner was appointed on 01.06.2005, the appointment order was issued to her by the fourth respondent management only on 20.12.2006 due to some dispute among the management. 4.It is the case of respondents 1 to 3, as seen from the counter affidavit, that the fourth respondent School originally had eight posts of Secondary Grade Teachers as sanctioned strength. During the period 2006-07, one post was found surplus and ultimately, the same was resumed on 08.06.2007. Challenging the said resumption order, the parties moved the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court by filing a writ petition. In that writ petition, the management has taken a stand admitting the claim of respondents 1 to 3 that the vacancy arose due to the retirement of N.Arumugam was declared surplus by the authorities. However, it is stated that if one more post is sanctioned, the management will consider the case of the petitioner for approval. Considering the same, the writ petition was closed. 5.One of the aspects raised by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 in the counter affidavit is that, by order dated 10.03.2006, while declaring the sanctioned strength for the year 2005-06, the authorities have declared only seven posts of Secondary Grade Teachers to the fourth respondent. Likewise for the year 2006- 07 also, sanction was made to that extent and ultimately on 08.06.2007, the Directorate of School Education passed an order resuming one post as surplus from the fourth respondent School, which has not been challenged. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the fourth respondent management, by letter dated 04.10.2007 addressed to the District Educational Officer, Maarthandam, stated that till date no appointment has been made. The petitioner was not appointed by the fourth respondent management and therefore, according to respondents 1 to 3, contradictory stand has been taken by the management as well as the petitioner. Be that as it may, in the representation of the petitioner dated 27.11.2008, the petitioner has requested the authorities to cancel the resumption order, taking note of the fact that she has been working in the said school from the year 2005 onwards. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Ravichandrabaabu, if the Government authorities decide not to approve the so called appointment of the petitioner from the date of her alleged appointment in 2005, it is always open to the authorities to approve that appointment even during the later period when the work load of the School increases. It is only ultimately respondents 1 to 3, who have to take appropriate action. 7.In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.11.2008 and to pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion of the matter and the facts are enumerated only for the purpose of disposing of the writ petition. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar sri To 1.The Director of School Education College Road, Chennai – 600 006. 2.The Chief Educational Officer Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3.The District Educational Officer Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District. + 1 cc to Mr.K.Ravichandra Baabu,Advocate,SR.37360 + 1 cc to Government Pleader,SR.37615 W.P. NO.524 OF 2009 VSV(CO) EM/29.9.09 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/