Madras High Court
V.Ramesh vs Gandhigran Santhi High School For Deaf on 27 November, 2023
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.A.(MD) No.891 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD) No.891 of 2018
and C.M.P.(MD) Nos.5676 of 2018 and 6764 of 2021
V.Ramesh ... Appellant/3rd Respondent
-Vs.-
1.Gandhigran Santhi High School for Deaf,
Rep. by its Correspondent,
Sivasailam – 627 412,
Tirunelveli District. ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.The Commissioner for Differently Abled,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 078.
3.The District Differently Abled Welfare Officer,
Kokkirakulam,
Tirunelveli District.
4.V.Saravanan ... Respondents 2 to 4/
Respondents 1, 2 & 4
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to
set aside the order dated 04.06.2018 made in W.P.(MD)No.203 of 2017
on the file of this Court.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.891 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan,
Senior Counsel for
M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.M.Senthil Kumar for R1
Mr.S.P.Maharajan,
Special Government Pleader
for R2 & R3
Mr.R.R.Kannan for R4
****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The Writ Appeal has been instituted against the order dated
04.06.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) No.203 of 2017.
2. The third respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant in
the Writ Appeal. The Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent
School, challenging the validity of the dated 27.12.2016, passed by the
Commissioner for Differently Abled / second respondent in the Writ
Appeal.
3. The School instituted the proceedings seeking approval of
the promotion of the fourth respondent Mr.V.Saravanan as Headmaster of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the 1st respondent’s school with effect from 01.06.2010. Learned Single
Judge adjudicated the relative merits between the parties and directed the
Commissioner / 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of
Mr.V.Saravanan as Headmaster of the 1st respondent with effect from
01.06.2010 and disburse the consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the
direction, granting approval of appointment to the post of Headmaster,
the third respondent in the Writ Petition Mr.V.Ramesh preferred the Writ
Appeal.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
mainly contended that the case of the appellant was not considered on
account of the warning issued to him and as per the Service Rules
Warning is not a punishment, and thus, rejecting the claim of the
appellant is in violation of the promotion rules in force.
5. However, the learned Senior Counsel on instructions, made a
submission that the appellant is ready to wait till such time the fourth
respondent attains the age of superannuation and retire from service from
the post of Headmaster. The fourth respondent is due to retire from
service within a period of one year. Learned Senior Counsel reiterated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the name of the appellant may be considered after the retirement of
the fourth respondent and the Management has no objection for
considering the name of the appellant after the retirement of the fourth
respondent Mr.V.Saravanan.
6. It is needless to state that warning is not a punishment. More
so, the said warning has already been taken into consideration while
preparing the panel for promotion during the previous occasion and
therefore, the very same warning issued to the appellant need not be
taken against him while preparing the panel after the retirement of the
fourth respondent.
7. Further, it is needless to state that the panel for promotion is
to be prepared by following the rules and by considering relative merits
between the employees who all are aspiring to secure promotion. Since
the appellant has decided to wait till such time the fourth respondent
attains the age of superannuation, no further adjudication needs to be
undertaken. Accordingly, the first respondent Gandhigran Santhi High
School for Deaf is directed to consider the case of the appellant for
promotion to the post of Headmaster after the retirement of the fourth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent V.Mr.Saravanan. Since the appellant has not insisted for the
relief as such sought for in the present Writ Appeal, there is no
impediment for granting approval of appointment of the fourth
respondent to the post of Headmaster by following the Rules.
8. With these directions, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[S.M.S.J.,] & [V.L.N.J.,]
NCC :Yes/No 27.11.2023
Index :Yes/No
SJ
To
1.The Commissioner for Differently Abled,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 078.
2.The District Differently Abled Welfare Officer,
Kokkirakulam,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
SJ
27.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
