Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

R. Indra Vs. the District Elementary

R. Indra vs The District Elementary

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 20, 2012
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/926518

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition No: 30467 of 2011
Subject
Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[VINOD K.SHARMA, J.] Constitution of India - Articles 226 -- Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to post the petitioner on promotion as Middle School Head Master, in the Avadi Municipality Midle School (Telugu) at Muthaputu...

Key legal issue
Constitution
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Articles 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

R. Indra

Advocate Mr. A.C. Manibharathi, Adv.

Respondent

The District Elementary

Advocate Mr. P. Karthikeyan , Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Articles 226

Excerpt

[vinod k.sharma, j.] constitution of india - articles 226 -- petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to post the petitioner on promotion as middle school head master, in the avadi municipality midle school (telugu) at muthaputupettai in accordance with the eligibility of the panel for b.t. head master for the year 2010-2011 for avadi block drawn on 01.01.2011.writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to post the petitioner on promotion as middle school head master in the avadi municipality midle school (telugu) at muthaputupettai in accordance with the eligibility of the panel for b.t. head master in the year 2010-2011 for avadi block drawn on 01.01.2011.order1. petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to post the petitioner on promotion as middle school head master, in the avadi municipality midle school (telugu) at muthaputupettai in accordance with the eligibility of the panel for b.t. head master for the year 2010-2011 for avadi block drawn on 01.01.2011.2. the petitioner was appointed as secondary grade teacher on 17th june, 1991 at panayurkuppam primary school, chithamur block, kancheepuram district and her services were regularised on 01.09.1991. she completed her probation on 01.09.1993.3. thereafter, petitioner completed b.a. (english) and b.ed. (english), and was promoted as b.t. assistant (english) on 5th november, 2007.4. when the next panel, for the year 2010-2011, for promotion to the post of middle school headmaster was drawn on 01.01.2011, petitioner was within the zone of consideration and her name was included.5. she was assigned 8th rank in the seniority list.6. the first five persons in the panel were promoted. the case of the petitioner is that subsequent to the promotion of those five candidates, against the remaining vacancy in the telugu school, petitioner alone is eligible to be appointed in the avadi municipal middle school (telugu), as her mother tongue is telugu. the case of the petitioner is, that inspite of the petitioner having been called for the counseling, it was postponed indefinitely.7. it is well settled law that a person cannot seek promotion merely because that post is available. it is for the employer to.....

Full Judgment

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to post the petitioner on promotion as Middle School Head Master in the Avadi Municipality Midle School (Telugu) at Muthaputupettai in accordance with the eligibility of the panel for B.T. Head Master in the year 2010-2011 for Avadi Block drawn on 01.01.2011.

ORDER

1. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to post the petitioner on promotion as Middle School Head Master, in the Avadi Municipality Midle School (Telugu) at Muthaputupettai in accordance with the eligibility of the panel for B.T. Head Master for the year 2010-2011 for Avadi Block drawn on 01.01.2011.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 17th June, 1991 at Panayurkuppam Primary School, Chithamur Block, Kancheepuram District and her services were regularised on 01.09.1991. She completed her probation on 01.09.1993.

3. Thereafter, petitioner completed B.A. (English) and B.Ed. (English), and was promoted as B.T. Assistant (English) on 5th November, 2007.

4. When the next panel, for the year 2010-2011, for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster was drawn on 01.01.2011, petitioner was within the zone of consideration and her name was included.

5. She was assigned 8th rank in the seniority list.

6. The first five persons in the panel were promoted. The case of the petitioner is that subsequent to the promotion of those five candidates, against the remaining vacancy in the Telugu School, petitioner alone is eligible to be appointed in the Avadi Municipal Middle School (Telugu), as her mother tongue is Telugu. The case of the petitioner is, that inspite of the petitioner having been called for the counseling, it was postponed indefinitely.

7. It is well settled law that a person cannot seek promotion merely because that post is available. It is for the employer to fill up the vacancy. The allegation of malafide cannot be taken note of, for the reason that no person has been impleaded in person as party against whom allegations have been levelled.

8. Even if counseling would have been held on 21.12.2011 or 22.12.2011 as scheduled, the petitioner being at the 8th place, there are two more persons above the petitioner, who are awaiting promotion, whereas, vacancy available are also only two, therefore, petitioner can not claim that post as of right.

9. The writ petition, being totally misconceived, deserves to be dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial