Madras High Court
S.David Stephen vs The District Registrar on 1 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)Nos.16 and 17 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)Nos.16 and 17 of 2020
and
CMP(MD).Nos.4563 and 4566 of 2020
and
CMP(MD).Nos.5329 and 5330 of 2020
W.A.(MD)No.16 of 2020
S.David Stephen ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Registrar,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
3. C.Jebastin
... Respondents/Respondents
W.A.(MD)No.17 of 2020
1. S.David Stephen
2. D.Tennis Doss
3. S.Ponselvi
4. P.James Paul
5. P.Jebamani
6. D.Davidson
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.(MD)Nos.16 and 17 of 2020
7. R.Felsi Latha ... Appellants/Petitioners 3 to 9
Vs.
1. C.Jebastin
2. The District Registrar,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents 2 & 3/
Respondents 1 & 2
Common Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against
the order of this Court made in W.P.(MD) Nos.13888 of 2019 and 15889 of
2019, dated 14.10.2019.
For Appellants : Mr.Rooshi (in both W.As)
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Standing Counsel for Government
for R1and R2
in W.A(MD).No.16 of 2020
for R2and R3
in W.A(MD).No.17 of 2020
Mr.S.Suresh Kumar for R3
in W.A(MD).No.16 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/6
W.A.(MD)Nos.16 and 17 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]
Heard Mr.Rooshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants;
Mr.r.Baskaran, learned Government Counsel appearing for the official
respondents and Mr.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the third
private respondent.
2. These appeals have been filed by the third respondent in W.P.(MD)
Nos. 13888 and 15889 of 2019, which were disposed of by a common order
dated 14.10.2019. It may not be necessary for us to adjudicate the correctness of
the order impugned in these appeals on account of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel
appearing for the third respondent. In fact, the interim order passed on
17.08.2020, makes the position clear. The appellant prayed for stay of the
proceedings and the Court held that the appellant has made out a prima facie
case for grant of interim order and issued an interim direction directing the
District Educational Officer to restore the position of the appellants in terms of
the proceedings dated 29.05.2019 in Mu.Mu.No.1533/A3/2018 till 13.10.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3/6
W.A.(MD)Nos.16 and 17 of 2020
3. This was because, the term of the office of the elected office
bearers was to expire on 13.10.2020. Thus, the appellant cannot continue to
hold the post of the Correspondent or Secretary of the institution beyond the
said date.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants that subsequently, elections have been conducted and new set of
office bearers have been elected and they have sought for approval of the
Secretaryship/Correspondentship by approaching the District Educational
Officer. Since the term of office of the elected office bearers as recognised by
the District Educational Officer by proceedings dated 29.05.2019, had expired
on 13.10.2020, till a fresh decision is taken by the District Educational Officer,
the appellant cannot claim to continue to be the Correspondent of the
institution.
5. Accordingly, we dispose of these appeals by directing the District
Educational Officer to administer the institution and also decide the request
made by the appellant for recognising him as a Correspondent. Before taking a
decision the third respondent should also be heard in the matter. The second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4/6
W.A.(MD)Nos.16 and 17 of 2020
respondent shall take note of the civil proceedings, which are pending before
the parties and pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law.
6. Needless to state that unless and until the Form-VII declaration is
accepted and recorded by the District Registrar, the District Educational Officer
cannot take a decision, therefore, only after that the appellant can approach the
District Educational Officer.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the third
respondent that the third respondent has also filed the Form-VII declaration. If
such is the dispute between the parties, it is only for the civil Court to decide the
same.
8. With the above observations, these writ appeals stand disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index :Yes/No (T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
Internet :Yes/No 01.07.2021
pkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5/6
W.A.(MD)Nos.16 and 17 of 2020
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
pkn
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
1. The District Registrar,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
W.A.(MD)Nos.16 and 17 of 2020
01.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
