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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33491

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
Christopher Jeba Kumar D – Appellant
Versus
The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli. – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.Umapathi
For the Respondents: Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader, Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan

Court directs consideration of promotion representation expeditiously without merits adjudication in writ petition.

Headnote:Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing promotion to Headmaster post considering representation dated 08.01.2026 in retirement vacancies. Petitioner, serving as B.T. Assistant since 1996, claimed non-consideration despite vacancies in aided schools. Court noted the submission without merits adjudication. Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 agreed to consider the representation. Issues framed around non-consideration of promotion representation despite vacancies and long service. Court directed consideration without delving into merits, emphasizing expeditious action. Writ petition disposed directing third respondent to consider representation dated 08.01.2026 for promotion to Headmaster and pass orders within eight weeks.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim for headmaster promotion due to vacancies and long service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. direction to consider representation expeditiously without merits. (Para 4 , 5)

ORDER

Heard the learned counel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel, who takes notice for the respondents 3 and 4.

2. The short ground of the petitioner in the present petition is that in spite of availability of various vacancies in the post of Headmaster in the Schools under the management of the third respondent, the third respondent is not taking steps for filling up the said post by way of promotion and thereby the petitioner is being deprived of consideration of his case for promotion. The petitioner is working as B.T.Assistant (Tamil) in the fourth respondent school since the year 1996. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been continuing in the said post for the past about 30 years.

3. In the above circumstances, the petitioner claims to have submitted a representation to the respondents 3 and 4 requesting for consideration of his case for the promotion to the post of Headmaster in any of the schools under their management. Complaining against non-consideration of the said representation, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 fairly submitted the respondents 3 and 4 would consider the representation dated 08.01.2026 submitted by the petitioner and would take appropriate decision on the same.

5. In the light of the above, without going into the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the representation dated 08.01.2026 submitted by the petitioner for promotion to the post of Headmaster and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a cop of this order. No costs.

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