Madras High Court
S.Sridhar vs The Director Of School Education on 23 December, 2021
W.A.No.2804 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.12.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.2804 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.18440 of 2021
S.Sridhar
S/o.M.Sadagopan .. Appellant/Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The District Education Officer,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur District.
3.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Kadambathur,
Thiruvallur District.
4.The Principal,
Sir Theagaraja College (Evening),
Chennai – 600 021. ..Respondent/Respondent
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2804 of 2021
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 07.10.2021 made in W.P.No.21737 of 2021.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Senthilnathan
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.M.S.Arasakumar
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 07.10.2021
recorded on Writ Petition No.21737 of 2021. This Writ Appeal is filed
by the original writ petitioner.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the
impugned order has the effect of, the appellant loosing public
employment on compassionate ground, since his father has died, while
he was in service. Learned advocate for the appellant has taken this
Court extensively through the facts on record and has submitted that
the relief as prayed for in the Writ Petition be granted.
3. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 /
State authorities has vehemently opposed this appeal. It is submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2804 of 2021
that the impugned order can not be said to be erroneous in any
manner which rejected the writ petition. It is further submitted that
the change in the name of the father of the writ petitioner could not
have been entertained because by changing that name the appellant
had availed certain benefit, coupled with the fact that the similar relief
was sought for on earlier occasion and those writ petitioners were not
entertained. It is submitted that the appellant is estopped from
agitating that point again. It is submitted that this appeal be
dismissed.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and
having considered the materials on record, this Court finds as under:-
4.1 It is not in dispute that the appellant is son of
'M.Sadagopan'. It is also not in dispute that the said name was
registered in the transfer certificate issued by the Department of
School Education of Government of Tamil Nadu a copy of which is on
record(Serial No: 1521/09-10). The authenticity of that certificate is
not in dispute.
4.2 On transfer of the School / Educational Institute, in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2804 of 2021
column of the name of father of the student (the appellant), name of
one 'M.Saravanan' is written. 'M.Sadagopan' and 'M.Saravanan' are /
were brothers.
4.3 This change could be at the request of the appellant or his
guardian, in the circumstances, which, according to us, should not dis-
entitle the petitioner to get his employment, if otherwise he is entitled
to. It is under these circumstances and in this background, this appeal
is being considered by this Court.
4.4 The prayer of the appellant ultimately is that, the name of
the appellant be shown as 'S.Sridhar' son of 'M.Sadagopan', which is
factually right.
4.5 So far the contest put forward on behalf of the respondent
authorities is concerned, it can not be said to be unjustified. So far the
reason(s) recorded in the impugned order are concerned, it can also
not be said to be erroneous. Still, the question is that a poor citizen is
standing before this Court with further grievance that his father
'M.Sadagopan', who was in the service of Indian Railways has passed
away on 03.05.2020 and the appellant being his son is eligible to apply
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2804 of 2021
for appointment on compassionate ground. But there is difference in
the name of the father in two different certificates. It is under these
circumstances, he is praying for some relief, grant of which may lead
to consideration for his employment in place of his deceased father. If
this relief is granted, it would be in his favour, at the same time it
would not be against any of the respondents. It is this balance, which
is weighing in favour of the appellant. Weighing the issue from this
angle, we find that ends of justice would meet, if the relief as prayed
for is granted. We also find that refusal to grant relief would not be in
furtherance of justice, in any manner. This appeal therefore needs to
be allowed.
5. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed:-
5.1 This writ appeal is allowed.
5.2 Relief as prayed for in the writ petition is granted.
5.3 The record of the schools shall be corrected by showing the
name of the appellant as 'S.Sridhar' son of 'M.Sadagopan', instead of
son of 'M.Saravanan'. Corrected certificate shall be issued.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2804 of 2021
5.4 It would also be open to the appellant to make
representation to the authorities, where the employment is sought,
pointing out this factual aspect, on the basis of this order.
6. This appeal is allowed in above terms. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(P.U., J) (S.S.K., J)
23.12.2021
Index:Yes/No
srm/11
To
1.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The District Education Officer,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.
3.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Kadambathur,Thiruvallur District.
4.The Principal,
Sir Theagaraja College (Evening),
Chennai – 600 021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2804 of 2021
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
srm
W.A.No.2804 of 2021
23.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
