Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs Livingston Raja .. 1St on 21 March, 2022
W.A(MD)No.185 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A(MD)No.185 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)No.1785 of 2022
1.The Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, St.Fort George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Thoothukudi District. .. Appellants /
Respondents 1 to 3
Vs
1.Livingston Raja .. 1st Respondent/
Petitioner
2.The Correspondent,
Tucker Higher Secondary School,
Pannaivilai – 628 751.
Thoothukudi District. .. 2nd Respondent/
Respondent No.4
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 08.01.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.26293 of 2019.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.185 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.S.P.Maharajan
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan
JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 08.01.2020
recorded on W.P(MD)No.26293 of 2019. This appeal is by the State
authorities.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant
State authorities has submitted that the impugned order is erroneous
since it takes into consideration the reasoning which is inconsistent with
the policy of the State. It is submitted that the denial by the State
authorities to approve the appointment was legal and therefore no relief
should have been granted. It is submitted that this appeal be
entertained.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the first
respondent / original writ petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had
approached this Court again, as the second round of litigation, since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.185 of 2022
earlier petition being W.P(MD)No.3535 of 2019 was filed and relief was
granted and it had attained finality and the consequential order passed by
the State was erroneous, which is rightly interfered with by the learned
Single Judge. It is submitted that no interference be made by this Court.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the material on record we find that the petitioner
was initially appointed on 07.02.2006 and the appointment was not
approved by the State authorities for the reasons which were already held
to be unsustainable in the earlier round of litigation which had attained
finality. The consequential directions given by this Court vide order dated
08.01.2020, according to us, are not erroneous in any manner which may
call for any interference in this intra-court appeal.
5. For the above reasons, we find that this appeal need not be
entertained. We note that the State has, during pendency of this appeal,
already complied with the order passed by learned Single Judge, however
there is stipulation therein that the same is subject to result of this
appeal. Since this appeal is not entertained, that stipulation would not
survive and the said order should be treated to be final.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.185 of 2022
6. This appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[P.U., J] [K.R., J]
21.03.2022
Index : No
smn/19
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, St.Fort George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Thoothukudi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.185 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
smn
W.A(MD)No.185 of 2022
21.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
