Madras High Court
J.Jenish vs The Joint Director Of School Education on 8 April, 2024
W.P.(MD)No.8759 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.(MD)No.8759 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.7998 and 8001 of 2024
J.Jenish ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of School Education,
College Road, Thousand Lights West,
Thousands Lights, Subba Road Avenue,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanniyakumari District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Marthandam Educational District,
Kanniyakumari District.
4.V.R.Sajikumar
5.The Head Master,
Purushothaman Pillai Memorial,
Higher Secondary School,
Anducode,
Kanniyakumari District. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.(MD)No.8759 of 2024
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to set aside the impugned order
passed by the first respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.
20016/W5/E1/2021 dated 16.11.2022 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently, direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anto Prince
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.T.Amjadkhan
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the first
respondent dated 16.11.2022 in Na.Ka.No.20016/W5/E1/2021 and
consequently, direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service.
2. Heard Mr.G.Anto Prince, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.T.Amjadkhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. Earlier, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.18149 of
2022 and got an order dated 11.08.2022 directing the first respondent to dispose
of the appeal within a specific time frame. In accordance with the order of this
Court, the said appeal was disposed of, by passing the order dated 16.11.2022
and the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"gs;spapy; rpWghd;ik me;j];J Fwpj;J gs;spj;jhshsuplk;
neuo tprhuiz kw;Wk; fhuzk; nfl;Fk; Fwpg;ghizfs;
mDg;gg;gl;ljw;F rpWghd;ik gs;sp vd;w Kiwapnyna
jhssuplkpUe;J gjpYiufs; bgwg;gl;l epiyapy;>
gs;spf;fy;tp ,iz ,af;Feh; (nky;epiyf;fy;tp) mtu;fspd;
e.f.vz;.81851/W/,2/2018 ehs; 05.04.2021 Mizapy;
xU gs;sp rpWghd;ikapdiu rhu;e;jjhf ,Ue;jhYk;> me;j
rpWghd;ikapdu; gs;sp epu;thfk; ntW xUtUf;F khw;wk;
bra;ag;gLk; nghJ> rpWghd;ikaw;w gs;spahf jhd;
fUj ,aYk;”vdj; bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ. ,t;thizapid vjph;j;J
gs;spj;jhshsuhy; W.P.(MD).No.8022 of 2021 tHf;F
bjhlug;gl;L> jilahiz bgwg;gl;lJ. ,t;tHf;fpy; Jiw
hPjpahf vjpu;thjt[iu jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;L tHf;F epYitapy;
cs;sJ."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier, the
petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.15478 of 2018 to challenge
the order of removal and the same is pending. This impugned order has been
passed and hence, that will affect the disposal of the other Writ Petition filed by
him, which challenges the order of removal. It is only at the instance of the
petitioner who wanted a direction to dispose of the appeal and the direction has
been given and consequently, the order dated 16.11.2022 has been passed.
Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to make out a point that
the appeal has been considered only on the basis of the point of limitation, the
order shows that it has also dealt with merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the removal of
service would become infructuous in view of the fact that he himself has invited
the present order by getting a direction in another Writ Petition filed by him in
W.P.(MD).No.18149 of 2022. Now, the petitioner cannot turn around and say
that this order will stare at him. Unless he challenges this by way of filing
another another Writ Petition, the scope for the earlier Writ Petition
W.P.(MD).No.15478 of 2018 will get affected. The petitioner has got an order
of acquittal on 03.05.2023 in a criminal case filed against him in C.C.No.152 of
2013 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kulithurai. But, however, the
impugned order has been passed prior to the judgment of the criminal Court.
Therefore, it is upto the petitioner to file any revision before the Government
taking into consideration the order of acquittal that has been passed subsequent
to the order passed in appeal, if he is so advised.
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.04.2024
NCC:yes/no
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
Nsr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Joint Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of School Education,
College Road, Thousand Lights West,
Thousands Lights, Subba Road Avenue,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanniyakumari District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Marthandam Educational District,
Kanniyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.N.MANJULA, J.
Nsr
08.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
