BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02/08/2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA
W.P.(MD)No.2340 of 2006
A.Mathialagai ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of District Elementary
Education,
Directorate of District Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the 2nd respondent herein passed in his proceedings
Na.Ka.No.3373/A5/05, dated 15.11.2005 regarding the cancellation of promotional
order of the petitioner herein and quash the same and further direct the
respondents herein to promote the petitioner herein as Headmistress with
retrospective effect from 29.10.200, the date of promotion of her junior with
all consequential,monetary and service benefits.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Thirumurthy
^For Respondents... Mr.D.Muruganandam
Additional Govt. Pleader
:ORDER
The petitioner seeks, a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash, the
impugned order, dated 15.11.2005, vide which, the promotion order of the
petitioner, dated 29.10.2005 has been ordered to be cancelled and the petitioner
stands reverted to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher.
2.The impugned order is challenged only on the ground, that though it
affects the civil rights of the petitioner, it has been passed without issuing
any show cause notice to the petitioner.
3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be
accepted, as reading of the impugned order shows, that it has been passed in
violation of principles of natural justice. Otherwise also, the impugned order
is not a speaking order, as no grounds have been mentioned as to why the
promotion has been cancelled and order of reversion passed.
4.Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside.
It will however be open to the respondents to initiate proceedings against the
petitioner, in case, any ground is made out, but after following due process of
law. The respondents are directed to pass a detailed speaking order, giving
reasons of the reversion of the petitioner, if so decided. No costs.
er