IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 30.10.2009
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice K.CHANDRU
Writ Petition No.18088 of 2009
---
School Committee of Pachaiyappa's College
Higher Secondary School,
Rep. By its Member and Head Master,
Mr.S.Jayachandran
Chennai-600 001. .. PETITIONER
Vs
1.The Administrator General and
Official Trustee,
Pachaiyappa's Trust,
High Court, Madras-104.
2.The Secretary,
Pachaiyappa's Trust
Pachaiyappa's College Campus
Poonamallee High Road,
Chennai.
3.The District Educational Officer,
College Road,
Chennai. .. RESPONDENTS
------
Prayer:-
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent-Secretary, Pachaiyappa's Trust, Chennai to consider and pass orders forthwith on the Petitioner's representation dated 19.08.2009 requesting the 2nd respondent to send proposal along with the Resolution of the School Committee for filling up the post of Physical Education Teacher in Pachaiyappa's College Higher Secondary School, Chennai in the regular sanctioned vacancy as per the staff fixation and the District Educational Officer's communication dated 09.02.2009.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Giridharan
For respondents :
for R1 and R2 : Mr.V.Perumal
for R3 : Mr.A.C.ManiBharathi
O R D E R
The petitioner is the School Committee of Pachaiyapp’s College Higher Secondary School and the School is under the control of the second respondent Trust. The grievance of the petitioner School Committee was that they want to fill up the post of Physical Education Teacher with a candidate from another school on migration basis and when they had sent such a proposal the third respondent was not entertaining such a proposal unless it was forwarded by the second respondent.
2. The petitioner is a School Committee. The second respondent is its educational agency. Under normal circumstances, the School Committee has power under Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 for appointing any teacher. In the present case, the question of sending the proposal by the second respondent did not arose out of any disciplinary action. On the contrary, the School Committee wanted to fill up the post and they wanted to get a candidate on migration from other school not belonging to the Trust. In such cases, the approval of the educational agency (the second respondent) is absolutely necessary. In essence, the writ petition is filed to direct the second respondent to consider the request made by the school committee and to forward its proposal to the third respondent.
3. It must be stated that both the petitioner and the second respondent belonged to the same Trust. The request of the petitioner to forward its proposal is purely an internal arrangement. What the petitioner cannot achieve directly, it cannot achieve it with the help of an order from this court.
4. It is brought to the notice of this court that already elections has been held and the first respondent is not controlling the trust. The plea made in the writ petition has to be done by the newly constituted Trust. Hence, the attempt to seek a writ of mandamus to the second respondent by the petitioner cannot succeed. The writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, it stands dismissed. No costs.
nvsri
To
1.The Administrator General and
Official Trustee,Pachaiyappa’s Trust, High Court, Madras-104.
2.The Secretary, Pachaiyappa’s Trust
Pachaiyappa’s College Campus, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai.
3.The District Educational Officer,
College Road,
Chennai