VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2023 › High Court of Madras

Dr.M.Balakrishnan, v. The Director of Collegiate

ALLOWED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
21 June 2023
Bench
S Justice S.Srimathyauthor
Case no.
WP(MD) 5906/2018

Judgment

O R D E R This writ petition is filed for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 03.01.2018 of the 1st respondent as illegal and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to approve the petitioner's appointment as Physical Training Instructor in the 3rd respondent college with effect from 14.04.2007, along with monetary benefits within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

2.The respondents have declined to approve the said post, since the said post is abolished based on G.O.(1D)No.135, Higher Education (D1) Department, dated 12.06.2009. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed prior to the abolition of the post.

¶3The said issued was already considered by a learned Single Judge and it was held that any person appointed prior to abolition of the post cannot be disturbed.

¶4In this writ petition, the petitioner was appointed prior to the abolition. Therefore, the appointment cannot be disturbed. Moreover, the petitioner has attained superannuation on 30.09.2022 and completed his service. Thereafter, the respondents have granted extension from

01.10.2022 to 30.04.2023 and the petitioner has completed the extension service also.

¶5Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents ought to pay the applicable salary to the said post along with benefits. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶6Subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is not having any right to fill up the said post based on G.O.(1D)No.135, Higher Education (D1) Department, dated 12.06.2009. If the 3rd respondent has appointed anybody, the official respondents are not bound to grant any aid to the 3rd respondent to the said post.

¶7With the above said observation, the writ petition is allowed in above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No

21.06.2023 Internet : Yes NCC : Yes / No Tmg To The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. S.SRIMATHY, J Tmg

21.06.2023

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.06.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P.(MD)No.5787 of 2018 M.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, No.30, VaidhyanadaIyer Street, Madurai-625 020. 3.The Principal and Secretary, The American College, Madurai-625 002. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Mu.Mu.No.11937/G4/2017, dated 03.01.2018 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to approve the petitioner's appointment as Physical Training Instructor in the 3rd respondent college with effect from 14.04.2007, along with monetary benefits within the period that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.M.E.Ilango For R1 : Mr.V.Omprakash Government Advocate For R3 : Mr.M.Mohaned Rafi for M/s.Ajmal Associates *****

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.