AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—The Director of School Education, Chennai, the Chief Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer, Thiruvarur have filed the above review application, questioning the order dated 7th January, 2005 made in W.P.M.P. No. 22713 of 2004 in W.P. No. 1891 2004.
Mrs. T. Ananthi, learned counsel takes notice for the contesting 1st respondent.
Heard both sides.
The 1st respondent herein filed W.P. No. 18916 of 2004, questioning the order in T.A. 240 of 1999 dated 15th March, 2004 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. In W.P.M.P. No. 22713 of 2004, the petitioner therein has prayed for staff operation of the said order pending disposal of the writ petition. While passing order on 7th January, 2005, after finding that this Court has granted interim stay even on 5th July, 2004 and ordered notice to the respondents and in the absence of definite information from the respondents therein as well as on the assumption that if, the stay is vacated, the petitioner therein will be ousted and in that event, the respondents therein will implement the proceedings dated 25th June, 2004, made the interim stay absolute.
It is brought to our notice by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners that certain relevant information were not brought to the notice of this Court on 7th January, 2005, while making the interim stay absolute. According her1, by proceedings dated 25th June, 2004, the Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvarur terminated the writ petitioner from service and in the same order, direction was issued to the Head Master, Government High School, Thirumakkottai, for relieving her from the post. It is further brought to our notice that pursuant to the said direction, the Head Master, Government School, Thirumakkottai, in his letter dated 30th June, 2004, intimated the Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvarur stating that on 30th June, 2004, Tmt. U.A rul Mozhi/writ petitioner, was terminated from service and the said intimation was sent to her by registered post with Acknowledgment Due. The above proceedings are available at page 3 and page 7 of the typed set filed along with the review application.
As rightly pointed out, if all these informations were brought to the notice of this Court on 7th January, 2005, the stay order would not have been extended and made absolute. On perusal of those documents, we are satisfied that even on the date of grant of stay, the writ petitioner was not in service.
In such circumstances, there is no question of making the stay absolute as ordered by us on 7th January, 2005. This error of material fact was not brought to the notice of this Court. Accordingly, the order dated 7th January, 2005 made in W.P.M.P. No. 22713 of 2004 in W.P. No. 18916 of 2004 is reviewed and the same is set aside. Consequently, W.P.M.P. 22713 of 2004 is dismissed and the review application No. 18 of 2005 is allowed.
Considering the grievance expressed by the writ petitioner, post the writ petition for final hearing on 5th December, 2005. The respondents are permitted to file counter affidavit/additional counter affidavit, if any, in the meanwhile.