Madras High Court
S.Anthonyraj vs The District Educational Officer on 3 August, 2022
W.A.(MD)No.799 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.799 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)No.6796 of 2022
S.Anthonyraj ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Educational Officer,
Office of the District Educational Officer,
Sivakasi – 626 123,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The President,
Thiruthangal Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai,
109, Main Road,
Thiruthangal – 626 130,
Virudhunagar District. .... Respondents/Respondents.
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the
order dated 29.06.2022 passed in W.P(MD)No.12236 of 2022.
For Appellant :Mr.M.Solaisamy
For R-1 :Mr.S.Saji Bino,
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
W.A.(MD)No.799 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant in
W.P(MD)No.12236 of 2022, dated 29.06.2022.
2. Heard Mr.M.Solaisamy, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.S.Saji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader for the first
respondent.
3. The appellant states that he is the member of the second respondent
Uravinmurai which appears to be a registered Society. The appellant filed the
writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent
to consider the writ petitioner's representation, dated 01.04.2022, before
passing any order to appoint the Correspondent for the second respondent
schools.
4. The grievance of the writ petitioner in the representation is that one
Manickam, who has been appointed as Correspondent of the schools managed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.799 of 2022
by the second respondent is not a person suitable for being appointed as
Correspondent. In the representation, he has also stated that a criminal
complaint has been registered against the said Manickam for the offence under
Section 306 of I.P.C and that, appointment of a person who involved in the
criminal case, is contrary to the Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools
Regulation Act and Rules.
5. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the short
ground that only if a person is convicted for an offence, disqualification set out
in the Rules, can be applied and that, the appellant cannot requests the official
respondents not to appoint the said Manickam as Correspondent as he is not a
person convicted for any offence. This Court is is in full agreement with the
order of Writ Court.
6. This Court is unable to find any merit in the above writ appeal.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
03.08.2022
Index : Yes / No
pm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.799 of 2022
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
pm
To:
The District Educational Officer,
Office of the District Educational Officer,
Sivakasi – 626 123,
Virudhunagar District.
W.A(MD)No.799 of 2022
03.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
