Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, K. KUMARESH BABU, JJ.
K. Manoharan & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Union of India Rep. by the Chief Secretary to Government Government of Puducherry, Puducherry & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 502 of 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2024
Review Application - School Librarians - The court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the matter back for reconsideration in light of the directions given by the Division Bench in a previous order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a review application after being permitted by a previous order of the Division Bench, but the Tribunal rejected the review application stating that fresh information available under the RTI Act cannot be entertained.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's decision ran contrary to the directions and observations made by the Division Bench in the previous order, and therefore set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back for reconsideration.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the review application by the Tribunal based on the grounds that fresh information available under the RTI Act cannot be entertained.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the directions and observations made by the Division Bench in a previous order, which permitted the petitioners to file a review application and have the matter reconsidered by the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration, directing that the documents filed by both sides in the review application should be taken into account and the review application should be decided on merits and in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer : Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the 4th respondent relating to the order dated 14.12.2022 in Review Application No.2 of 2018 passed by the 4th respondent quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to appoint the petitioners as School Librarians with effect from 22.11.2010 with all consequential benefits including seniority, arrears of salary and all other attendant benefits.)
R. Suresh Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai Bench in R.A.No.310 of 2018 in O.A.No.217 of 2012 dated 14.12.2022.
2. Heard Ms.R.Vaigai learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Mustafa, learned Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) who has taken notice for the respondents.
3. Originally there were four applicants before the Tribunal, who filed original application to seek for appointment as School Librarians. Out of the four, two were considered to be granted and remaining two cases were rejected by the Tribunal, as against which when writ petition was filed by the remaining two, whose cases were rejected by the Tribunal, the writ petition was dismissed, as against which Review Application also was filed by those two, who are the present applicants / writ petitioners, where, the roster point on which the vacancy was caused has not been properly brought before the Court earlier. Therefore, after getting necessary information through the RTI Act, the applicants were able to produce certain documents which were clinching evidences according to them to establish their cases that there has been vacancies and therefore their cases could have been considered by the Tribunal.
4. When this Review Application in R.A.No.112 of 2017 came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, the Division Bench by order dated 14.11.2017, having considered those aspects, has passed the following order."
7. The petitioners are given liberty to file a review application before the Tribunal for review of the order dated 25.03.2014 in O.A.No.217 of 2012. In case of any such review application is filed within a period of three weeks time from today, the same shall be entertained and disposed of by the Tribunal on merits and as per law, notwithstanding the delay. The Review petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs."
5. Therefore, by the said order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 14.11.2017, the petitioners therein, who are the applicants and petitioners herein were permitted to agitate the issue by filing necessary review application before CAT within the time stipulated therein and if such application is filed, that should be decided on merits based on the documents adduced by both sides.
6. Only pursuant to the said order of this Court dated 14.11.2017, the applicants / petitioners had approached the Tribunal by filing the present Review Application No.2 of 2018. However, while dismissing the said review application, the Tribunal has stated that the review applicants are trying to bring in fresh information available under RTI Act to re-appraise the matter afresh and therefore the review application cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the review application was rejected by the order impugned, against which the present writ petition has been filed.
7. In fact the Division Bench, by order dated 14.11.2017, which is quoted herein above, having taken note of these factors had given such liberty to the said applicants / petitioners to re-agitate the issue by way of a review application to be filed before the Tribunal
The court emphasized the importance of considering the directions and observations made by the Division Bench in a previous order, and the need for the Tribunal to reconsider the matter in light of t....
Proper procedure for addressing appointment disputes and the obligation of the respondent to consider representations and pass appropriate orders within a specified timeframe.
The recruitment process must ensure equal treatment of all candidates, upholding constitutional principles of fairness and non-discrimination.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that obtaining permission from the competent authority before making an appointment in an educational institution is crucial for approval, and the ....
It is neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to prior court directives in appointment approvals, particularly considering the timing of the petitioner's appointment relative to the surplus teacher ....
Provisional participation in interview pending fresh action before the Tribunal
The main legal point established is that the appointment proposal should be approved if it satisfies all prescribed norms and rules and there are no surplus teachers in the school.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
