BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07/11/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.(MD)No.9628 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 M.A.Mustafa Kamal ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Collegiate Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2.The Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai-6. 3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tiruchirappalli Region, Tiruchirappalli-2. 4.The Principal, Government Arts College, Tiruchirappalli-22 ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent by his proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.645/A/2008 dated 13.10.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to work as per the petitioner's re- appointment. !For Petitioner ...Mr.G.Karnan ^For Respondents ...Mr.D.Sasikumar Government Advocate :ORDER
Heard both sides.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition as stood
exposited from the affidavit accompanying the petition as well as from the
representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner would run thus:
The petitioner was given reemployment vide G.O.Ms.No.274 dated 04.07.2008.
In response to it, the petitioner rejoined the fourth respondent institution and
he has been functioning as lecturer from 21.07.2008. While so, like a bolt from
the blue, the impugned communication dated 13.10.2008 was served on the
petitioner, which would state as though his services are no more required w.e.f.
13.10.2008 and that communication itself was served on the petitioner only on
the eve of Deepavali.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such the course adopted by the
fourth respondent, this writ petition has been filed.
4. Whereas the learned Government Advocate, while canvassing the case of
the respondents, has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant portion
of the said proceedings dated 15.07.2008 in Na.Ka.No.2220/M3/2008 and developed
his arguments to the effect that the reemployment was subject to the condition
that he would be retained in service till end of the academic year 2008-09 or
till a new appointee is posted as lecturer in his post, whichever takesplace
earlier.
5. It is the submission of the learned Government Advocate that a new
appointee viz., Govindan was appointed and thereupon only the impugned
communication was sent.
6. Refuting and challenging, impugning and gainsaying the
allegations/averments/submissions made on the side of the respondents, the
learned counsel for the petitioner would convincingly and correctly make a
submission to the effect that the second respondent might be directed to
consider as to whether in the fourth respondent College all the posts were filed
up by new recruits or not, if any post is vacant, then the petitioner may be
ordered to continue as lecturer on reemployment basis till the end of the
academic year 2008-09.
7. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and accordingly, the following direction is issued:
The second respondent is directed to consider as to whether in the fourth
respondent College all the posts were filed up by new recruits or not, if any
post is vacant, then the petitioner may be ordered to continue as lecturer on
reemployment basis till the end of the academic year 2008-09.
8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
smn/dp
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Collegiate Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Director of Collegiate Education,
Chennai-6.
3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Tiruchirappalli Region,
Tiruchirappalli-2.
4.The Principal,
Government Arts College,
Tiruchirappalli-22.
