Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2009
  6. /
  7. January

School Committee Of ... vs The Administrator General And

Madras High Court|30 October, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

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
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

School Committee Of ... vs The Administrator General And

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
30 October, 2009