Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER versus T. SUNDARRAJ

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner v. T. Sundarraj - Writ Petition No.15786 of 2005 [2005] RD-TN 383 (13 June 2005)



In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated:13/06/2005

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM

Writ Petition No.15786 of 2005
and
WPMP.No.17231 of 2005

1. The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Chennai 600 003.

2. The Educational Officer
Education Department
Corporation of Chennai
Chennai 600 003. .. Petitioners


-vs-


1. T. Sundarraj

2. The Secretary to Government
Education Department
Fort St. George
Madras 9.

3. The Director of School Education
D.P.I. Compound, Madras 6.

4. The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
Chennai. .. Respondents


Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari as stated therein.

For petitioners : Mr. C. Ravichandran



:ORDER



(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.,) The petitioners have filed the above writ petition questioning the order dated 28.04.1998 made in O.A.No.764 of 1995 on the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.

2. The first respondent herein, viz., T. Sundarraj, Secondary Grade Assistant, Corporation High School, Puliyur, Chennai has filed the said Original Application, questioning the order of the Educational Officer, Corporation Education Department - 4th respondent before the Tribunal, rejecting his request to count the services rendered by him in the Gokulam Welfare Middle School, a privately managed aided School ( which was taken over by the Corporation from 18.7.84) from 23.05.1973 to 17.07.1984 for nearly 11 years, for the purpose of fixing seniority and according promotion to the post of Tamil Pandit Grade I on the basis of the said seniority. The said application came to be disposed of by the Tribunal based on the decision of the Supreme Court and directed the Educational Officer of the Corporation to count the services rendered by the applicant in Gokulam Welfare Middle School from 23.05.1973 to 17.07.1984 for the purpose of seniority and consider him for promotion as Tamil Pandit Grade I on the basis of his inclusion in the panel published on 14.11.1994 on par with his juniors with all consequential service benefits. Questioning the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

3. Heard the learned standing counsel for Corporation of Chennai.

4. Before going into the matter, it is relevant to point out that the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on 28.04.1998, however, the writ petition has been filed challenging the said order only on 12.04.2005. Even in the affidavit of the Educational Officer, Corporation of Chennai, particularly in para 5 it is specifically stated that the said order was received by their Department on 06.05.1999. Thereafter, according to the deponent of the affidavit, the file was sent to the legal department and after taking decision, they filed the present writ petition on 12.04.2005. A perusal of the details, particularly para 5 of the affidavit show that there is no proper explanation for not taking steps till 12.04.2005. We are satisfied that though there is no prescribed limitation for challenging the order of the Tribunal, it would not be proper for us to entertain the above writ petition, nearly after six years.

5. Coming to merits, it is clear from the impugned order that the Tribunal based on the judgment of the Supreme Court accepted the claim of the applicant and granted relief. It is also relevant to note that in the order dated 12.07.1984, regarding taking over of private school in question by the Corporation, the Authority concerned has specifically stated that the services rendered in the management school will be taken into consideration only for monetary benefits. When the petitioners intend to safeguard the monetary benefits of the person / persons concerned, we are of the view that it is but proper to consider the length of service rendered by the first respondent in the erstwhile management. Accordingly, even on merits, we are satisfied that there is no valid ground for interference, hence the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected WPMP., is also dismissed. Index:Yes Internet:Yes

kh

To

1. The Secretary to Government

Education Department

Fort St. George

Madras 9.

2. The Director of School Education

D.P.I. Compound, Madras 6.

3. The Registrar

Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal

Chennai.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.