Madras High Court
John Wilson Azariah vs The Director Of School Education on 21 September, 2023
W.P.No.72 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.No.72 of 2023 and
W.M.P.Nos.59 & 60 of 2023
John Wilson Azariah ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thirupattur.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Thirupattur, Thirupattur District.
4.The Correspondent,
Concordia Higher Secondary School,
Ambur – 635 802.
5.Enuice Chandrothayam ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for entire records
connected with the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent vide
Na.Ka.No.2897/Aa3/2021, dated 15.09.2022, and the order of the 3rd
respondent in Na.Ka.No/3751/A2/2017, dated 09.11.2017, in so far as
appointing the 5th respondent as Headmistress (in-charge) of the 4th
respondent school and Quash the same and consequently direct the 2 nd
respondent to approve the promotion of the petitioner as Headmaster in the
4th respondent w.e.f 01.06.2017, on the basis of the proposal submitted by
Page No.1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.72 of 2023
the school on 02.06.2017, with all monetary and consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran
For Respondents : Mr.P.Baladhandayutham,
Special Government Pleader-R1 to R3
No Appearance-R4
Mrs.Dakshayini Reddy, Senior Counsel for
Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan-R5
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the entire records
connected with the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent vide
Na.Ka.No.2897/Aa3/2021, dated 15.09.2022 and the order of the 3rd
respondent in Na.Ka.No.3751/A2/2017, dated 09.11.2017 in so far as
appointing the 5th respondent as Headmistress (in-charge) of the 4th
respondent School and quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd
respondent to approve the promotion of the petitioner as Headmaster in the
4th respondent School w.e.f 01.06.2017, on the basis of the proposal
submitted by the School on 02.06.2017, with all monetary and
consequential benefits.
2.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
from 06.01.2017 onwards, the petitioner was appointed as Headmaster in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.72 of 2023
the 4th respondent School and the proposal for approval of the same was
duly forwarded by the 4th respondent School to the 3rd respondent.
However, when the same was pending, the 3rd respondent has appointed the
5th respondent as Headmistress (in-charge) of the 4th respondent School vide
impugned order, dated 09.11.2017. His further contention is that since the
petitioner has been appointed as Headmaster of the 4th respondent School
and the proposal for the same was also sent for approval, the petitioner's
approval should have been sanctioned. On the contrary, the 2nd respondent
vide impugned order, dated 15.09.2021 has rejected the approval for
promotion as Headmaster. Despite the report of the Interim Administrator,
dated 07.09.2022 directing the promotion of the petitioner as Headmaster in
the 4th respondent School prospectively and not from 01.06.2017, the said
report has not taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent in the
impugned order, dated 15.09.2022. Challenging the same and also the
impugned order of the 3rd respondent, dated 09.11.2017 appointing the 5th
respondent as Headmistress (in-charge) of the 4th respondent School, the
present Writ Petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.72 of 2023
3.The counter has been filed by the learned Special Government
Pleader stating that in pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court and based
on the report of the Interim Administrator, dated 07.09.2022, the 3 rd
respondent has passed the impugned rejection order.
4.Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent
and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents
1 to 4 and perused the entire materials.
5.The petitioner's claim is based on the appointment made by the
then Correspondent of the 4th respondent School. It is relevant to note that
there was dispute over the Management of the Institution with regard to
appointment of Correspondent and the same is also a subject matter of the
civil suit in TR.C.S.No.741 of 2017 and A.No.1695 of 2018 wherein this
Court by judgment, dated 31.07.2018 has found some fraud has been played
not only by the parties in the Civil Suit in C.S.No.373 of 2017 but also by
some of the counsel said to have been appeared for other defendants and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.72 of 2023
taking note of all the aspects and for smooth administration of the Church,
has appointed the retired Judge of this Court Mr.Justice D.Hariparandaman
as Interim Administrator to look into all the issues. Therefore, when there
was dispute between the persons over the Management, the petitioner is said
to have been sponsored by one of the rival group. Such being the position,
the petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot seek an appointment as
Headmaster.
6.It is also relevant to note that the 5 th respondent was appointed as
Headmistress (in-charge) of the 4th respondent School based on the order
passed by the 3rd respondent on 09.11.2017 for smooth running of the 4 th
respondent School. From 2017 onwards, the 5th respondent was holding the
post of Headmistress (in-charge) of the 4th respondent School. It appears
that she was supposed to be superannuated in the month of June 2022,
however, this Court, by interim order in W.P.No.28426 of 2022, dated
28.10.2022 gave direction not to disturb the petitioner from functioning as a
Teacher in the School. Pursuant to the said order, it appears that the 5th
respondent has been relieved from the post from 30.06.2022 and thereafter,
the petitioner also retired on 30.04.2023. It is also relevant to note that in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.72 of 2023
an earlier writ petition, the impugned order, dated 09.11.2017 was
challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos.17245 of 2018 etc., batch. This
Court, by order, dated 30.10.2019 has disposed the batch of writ petitions
with a direction to the Chief Educational Officer to consider the proposal
submitted by the Correspondent of concerned School in the matter of
approval of appointment of both teaching and non-teaching staffs. It is to
be noted that the impugned order, dated 09.11.2017 has not discussed in the
order of this Court, dated 30.10.2019. Be that as it may, now the same
impugned order, dated 09.11.2017 has sought to be challenged in the
present Writ Petition.
7.In the opinion of this Court, such a practise is not acceptable,
when the impugned order, dated 09.11.2017 was already put in challenge in
an earlier writ petition. While disposing the Writ Petition (W.P.Nos.17245
of 2018 etc., batch), the learned Single Judge has not quashed the impugned
order, dated 09.11.2017. Therefore, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner
is to file an appeal and not to bring another Writ Petition for the same relief.
In such view of the matter, impugned order, dated 09.11.2017 cannot be
challenged in this Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.72 of 2023
8.It is to be noted that while disposing the Writ Petition earlier
(W.P.Nos.17245 of 2018 etc., batch), this Court is also directed the Chief
Educational Officer to obtain the opinion of the Interim Administrator in the
matter of approval of the appointments. The Interim Administrator, by
report, dated 07.09.2022 has given various recommendations in respect of
the petitioner and it is suggested that the petitioner should be promoted
prospectively as Headmaster in the 4th respondent School and not from
01.06.2017 as sought for by him. The reasons for such suggestion is also
spelt out in paragraph No.4 of the report and the same is also indicated that
the petitioner was never worked as Headmaster from the appointment date,
that is, 01.06.2017 and in his place, 5th respondent was already put in place.
9.Now, it appears that the 5th respondent superannuated on
30.06.2022 and the petitioner was retired from service on 30.04.2023. Such
view of the matter, the petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot claim
promotion from the date of his appointment. Hence, I do not find any merits
in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.72 of 2023
10.Since the petitioner already retired from service on 30.04.2023,
the 4th respondent is directed to disburse the eligible terminal benefits to the
petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
21.09.2023
(½)
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vv2
To
1.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thirupattur.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Thirupattur, Thirupattur District.
4.The Correspondent,
Concordia Higher Secondary School,
Ambur – 635 802.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.72 of 2023
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vv2
W.P.No.72 of 2023
21.09.2023
(½)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
