SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1980

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. VELMURUGAN, K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
G. Grace Selin Rani – Respondent
W.A. (MD) Nos. 161, 162, 409 of 2023, C.M.P. (MD) Nos. 2131, 2133, 4442 of 2023
Decided On : 01-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M. Sarangan
For the Respondents: Issac Mohanlal, H. Thayunaswamy

The court affirmed that educational authorities must consistently approve appointments for similarly situated individuals, rejecting arbitrary refusals.

Headnote:(A) Letters Patent Act - Clause 15 - Writ Appeals against orders passed in Writ Petitions concerning approval of promotions in educational institutions - The court directed the respondents to consider the approval of appointments, emphasizing the need for consistency in treatment of similarly situated individuals. (Paras 6, 10, 11)

(B) Administrative Authority - The court held that the Administrator's approval of appointments must be respected, and the appellants cannot adopt a pick-and-choose methodology in approving promotions. (Paras 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The Writ Appeals arise from the non-approval of promotions for teachers in a school, where disputes between rival groups led to administrative intervention and subsequent legal challenges. The petitioners sought approval for their promotions after prior orders from the court directed consideration of their proposals.

Findings of Court:
The court found no reason to interfere with the learned Single Judge's findings and upheld the direction to approve the promotions of the petitioners as similarly situated individuals had been treated.

Issues: The main issues included the authority of the Administrator to approve promotions and the consistency of treatment for similarly situated individuals.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellants must treat similarly situated individuals consistently and cannot adopt arbitrary methods in approving promotions.

Result: Writ Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

PRAYER in W.A. (MD) No. 409 of 2023 Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 8488 of 2021, dated 26.4.2021.

PRAYER in W.A. (MD) No. 161 of 2023 Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 8591 of 2021, dated 27.4.2021.

PRAYER in W.A. (MD) No. 162 of 2023 Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 8615 of 2021, dated 27.04.2021.

1. These Writ Appeals are directed against the order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) Nos. 8488, 8591 and 8615, dated 26.04.2021 and 27.04.2021.

2. Since the subject-matter of all these Writ Appeals and the appellants are one and the same, these Writ Appeals are taken up together and this Common Judgement is passed.

3. The Writ Petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 8488 of 2021 and the Ist Respondent in the Writ Appeal in W.P. (MD) No. 409 of 2023 was appointed as P.G. Assistant (Zoology) in the second respondent school and her appointment was approved on 2.10.2001. Subsequently, she was promoted as Headmistress in the above said school on 20.07.2015. The second respondent school sent a proposal to the respondents 1 to 4 therein for approval of her promotion on 3.8.2015. Since the respondents 1 to 4 therein failed to pass any order, she has filed a Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 17404 of 2015 seeking a direction to pass orders on the proposal of the Writ Petitioner and this Court by order, dated 5.3.2018 passed orders directing the respondents to consider the proposal submitted by the second respondent school within a period of four weeks. In the meanwhile, dispute arose between the two rival groups of the school and the principal Bench of this Court appointed the seventh respondent therein as Administrator of IELC. The Principal Bench of this Court, on the litigation initiated by one of the groups, appointed the seventh respondent as Administrator and Administrator also after verifying the records, approved the appointment of the Petitioner with effect from 2.7.2015 by proceedings, dated 17.6.2020.The Headmistress as well as the Administrator sent a proposal to the respondents 3 and 4 therein to approve the appointment by way of promotion as Headmistress to the sixth respondent school on 20.7.2015 and the same was not considered till date. Hence the Writ Petition.

4. The Writ Petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 8591 of 2021 and appellant in W.A. (MD) No. 161 of 2023 was appointed as P.G. Assistant (Zoology) in the fifth respondent school with effect from 8.7.2015 and thereafter, the school submitted necessary proposal on 3.8.2015 to the respondents 3 and 4 therein. Since no order was passed on the same, the Petitioner filed W.P. (MD) No. 17407 of 2015 seeking for a direction to approve the appointment of the Petitioner and this Court by order, dated 5.3.2018 directed the respondents therein to consider the proposal submitted by the fifth respondent school within a period of four weeks from the date of order. Thereafter, dispute arose between rival groups and an Administrator was appointed and the learned Administrator also sent proposal to the third respondent therein Chief Educational Officer to approve her appointment of the Petitioner from the date of initial date of appointment .Since the same was not considered the present Writ Petition is filed.

5. The Petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 8615 of 2021 and first respondent in W.A. (MD) No. 162 of 2023 was appointed as P.G. Assistant (commerce) in the fifth respondent school on 20.7.2015 and the facts are similar to the facts in W.P. (MD) No. 8591 of 2021. In this case, the Petitioner has filed W.P. (MD) No. 17405 of 2025 and this Court also by order, dated 5.3.2015 directed the respondents therein to consider the proposal sent by the fifth respondent school; within a period of f

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top