Madras High Court
V.A.Raj vs Indian Evangelical Lutheran ... on 28 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1214 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1214 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.5123 of 2021
V.A.Raj : Appellant
Vs.
1.Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church,
Rep. by the Administrator,
Justice D.HAriparanthaman (Retd.,),
No.47, Eldams Road,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus,
College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.A.(MD)No.1214 of 2021
4.The District Educational Officer,
O/o. The District Educational Office,
Valliyoor,
Tirunelveli District.
5.Mrs.S.Vijayalakshmi,
District Educational Officer,
O/o. The District Educational Office,
Valliyoor,
Tirunelveli District. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order dated 11.03.2021, in W.P.(MD)No.10071 of
2019.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Jeayaprakash
for Mr.D.Selvanayagam
For Respondent No.1 : No appearance
For Respondents 2to4 : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Standing Counsel for Government
For Respondent No.5 : Mr.Silambarasan
Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Karthick
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
This Writ Appeal by the fifth respondent in the writ petition in
W.P.(MD)No.10071 of 2019, is aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2021
passed in the writ petition, in and by which the proceedings of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1214 of 2021
District Educational Officer, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District dated
18.03.2019, granting approval of appointment of the appellant as the
Correspondent of the institution was set aside.
2.Mr.R.Jeyaprakash, learned Counsel for the appellant
elaborately set out the factual matrix and submitted that the appellant
was appointed as Correspondent on 01.05.2018 and the reason assigned
by the learned Writ Court for setting aside the said appointment is solely
on the ground that an Administrator had been appointed in the institution
wherein the Hon'ble retired Judge of this Court had taken over and for
such reason alone the approval of appointment of the appellant as
Correspondent could not have been interfered. Further, it is submitted
that the District Educational Officer had implemented the directions
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6101 of 2018
dated 06.07.2018 and no error was committed in the order approving the
appointment of the appellant as Correspondent.
3.We have heard Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel
for Government appearing for the official respondents and
Mr.Silambarasan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Karthick, learned
Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, since the District
Educational Officer Smt.S.Vijayalakshmi has been impleaded by name in
the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1214 of 2021
4.After elaborately hearing the learned Counsel for the parties,
we are of the considered view that the order and direction issued by the
learned Writ Court is perfectly justified and calls for no interference. We
support such conclusion with the following observations:
4.1.The case of the Correspondent is that he was appointed on
01.05.2018. There was a litigation between the members of the Indian
Evangelical Lutheran Church. The matter travelled up to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the order was passed on 06.07.2018, directing the
District Educational Officer to take a fresh decision in the place of the
earlier decision dated 13.04.2018, after affording the opportunity of
personal hearing to the appellant herein as well as the official
respondents and other respondents. The order which was set aside by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was dated 13.04.2018. This order was based on
the earlier incumbent in office granting approval for three other persons
as Correspondent of the institution which was put to challenge by the
Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church, represented by Mr.V.A.Raj, who is
the Secretary, who is none other than the appellant before us who claims
to have been validly appointed by the Church as the Correspondent.
4.2.After the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
Transfer C.S.No.741 of 2017, and Application No.1695 of 2018, the
learned Single Bench at the principal seat in a suit filed by the Indian
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1214 of 2021
Evangelical Lutheran Church represented by its General Treasurer
passed an order on 31.07.2018, appointing a retired Judge of this Court
as the Administrator of the institution. In the said order, the learned
Court notes that earlier the Court had recorded in its order dated
26.07.2018 that fraud has been played not only by the parties in the suit
in C.S.No.373 of 2017, but also by some of the Counsels said to have
appeared for other defendants in the said suit which was struck off with
costs. Further, the Court noted that in the order dated 26.07.2018, the
Court made an observation that for the smooth running of the Church, in
view of the serious allegations made against each other and for the
interest of the Church and its members, a retired Judge of this Court is to
be appointed as Administrator of the Church to maintain and to conduct
election and the entire administration should be monitored as per the
byelaws of the Church.
4.3.After the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
received by the appellant, he had submitted a representation dated
03.09.2018 which was handed over by the appellant in person to the
District Educational Officer when one P.Natarajan, was holding the post.
In his order dated 04.10.2018, he has made it clear that the Hon'ble
Administrator having been appointed to the institution, his concurrence is
required in the matter. Subsequently, the fourth respondent was posted
as the District Educational Officer, who has passed the order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1214 of 2021
18.03.2019, which was impugned in the writ petition. The explanation,
however, is that in compliance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the order dated 18.03.2019 was passed without
reference to the Hon'ble Administrator. This explanation cannot be
accepted, since the earlier incumbent in office took note of the
appointment of the Hon'ble Administrator and observed that the
concurrence of the Administrator is required to be obtained before
approval is considered.
4.4.To say the least, this issue is never canvassed by the
appellant Mr.V.A.Raj, since he was the Secretary representing the Indian
Evangelical Lutheran Church when they filed a writ petition, questioning
an order passed by the District Educational Officer dated 13.04.2018 in
and by which three persons were appointed as Correspondents. Thus, the
attempt of the appellant appears to be to succumb the Administrator and
get approval from the department. Therefore, the learned Single Bench
was right in interfering with the order dated 18.03.2019 and we find no
ground to interfere with the said order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1214 of 2021
5.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
28.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR
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 Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Educational Officer,
O/o. The District Educational Office,
Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1214 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1214 of 2021
28.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
