Madras High Court
The Correspondent vs S.Prabu on 22 March, 2017
Bench: S.Manikumar, G.Chockalingam
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 22.03.2017
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM
Writ Appeal(MD)No.813 of 2013
M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013
The Correspondent,
Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School,
Thiruvarangam-623 712,
Ramanathapuram District. .... Appellant/
3rd Respondent
vs.
1.S.Prabu ... Respondent-1/
Writ Petitioner
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District. .... Respondents-2&3/
Respondents-1&2
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the
order made in W.P.(MD)No.3879 of 2009, dated 30.07.2010.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Appellant : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
For Respondent-1 : Mr.V.Panneerselvam for
M/s.C.S.Associates.
For Respondents 2&3 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan,
Spl.Govt.Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR) Challenge in this writ appeal, is to the order made in W.P(MD)No. 3879 of 2009, dated 30.07.2010, by which, the order of the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, dated 27.11.2008, the 2nd respondent herein, has been set aside.
2. The appellant herein is a minority school, getting grant-in- aid from the Government and it is a Higher Secondary School. According to the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, he was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher, with effect from 16.07.2007, in a vacancy caused on the promotion of one M.Arul Prabakar, as Physical Education Director and since then he has been working in the appellant school.
3. Whileso, the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, http://www.judis.nic.in 3 the 2nd respondent herein, vide the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.6576/Aa. 2/08, dated 27.11.2008, declared one post of Physical Education Teacher, in the appellant school, as surplus and instructed the appellant school to transfer the surplus post, with the teacher, to any one of the Schools (Corporate Body Schools) under their control and to inform the action taken to the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram. The said proceedings further states that if there is no post vacant in other schools, consent of the teacher for deployment to other schools be obtained and sent to the office of the Chief Educational Officer.
4. Being aggrieved by the said proceedings of the Chief Education Officer, Ramanathapuram, in Na.Ka.No.6576/Aa.2/08, dated 27.11.2008, the 1st respondent/writ petition filed W.P.(MD)No.3879 of 2009 before this Court, seeking to set aside the same. He has also sought for a consequential direction to respondents 2 and 3 herein to approve his appointment as Physical Education Teacher in the appellant School, from the date of his appointment.
5. Before the writ court, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner contended that at the relevant point of time the appellant school had a student strength more than 1800 and as per G.O.Ms.No.525, School http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Education Department, dated 29.12.1997, the school was entitled to have the said one post of Physical Education Teacher, declared as surplus in the impugned proceedings. The writ court, by order dated 30.07.2010, allowed the writ petition. Operative portion of the order of the writ court reads as under:
“6.As far as the above issue is concerned, it has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Director of School Education v. K.Uma, reported in 2010 (2) MLJ 277, wherein, in paragaraph No.22, it has been held as follows:-
“If physical education is appropriate, good sportsmen and excellent athletes would be made. In mythology, Rama and Arjuna were able to marry Sita and Drowpadi respectively and win n battles as they were good in “Archery”. It was possible because of the excellent physical education and training they underwent in their “Gurukulam”. Nowadays gurukulam are “Schools” and therefore, physical education needs to be given more attention in schools. Achievements of Sachin (sic) Tendulkar, P.T.Usha, Abhinav Bindra are basically because of good physical education and training. In schools alone, young talents could be identified and they could be groomed in the specific sports and games in appropriate way for future excellence.” http://www.judis.nic.in 5
7.As per the said Judgment, a High School is eligible for a maximum of three Physical Education Teachers and the Higher Secondary School is eligible for one post of Physical Director. As such, the stand taken by the learned Special Government Pleader that the third respondent school is eligible for a maximum of three posts of Physical Education Teachers in respect of both High School and Higher Secondary School cannot be accepted. Apart from this, since the issue in question has already been covered by the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the order dated 27.11.2008, passed by the first respondent is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”
6. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant school, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, has come forward with the present writ appeal, raising the following grounds:
“(a) The Order of the learned Judge is contrary to the law and the facts of the case.
(b) Error apparent occurred on the face of the Order of this Hon'ble Court in as much as the same is based on non-
existent facts wantonly placed by the Writ Petitioner before this Hon'ble Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
(c) An apparent error has crept in the Order of this Hon'ble Court in directing the Education Department to give approval to the 1st respondent even as he was never appointed as Physical education teacher in the appellant school against any such sanctioned post.
(d) Manifest injustice occasioned to the appellant herein as this Hon'ble Court has passed the Order based upon documents fabricated and produced by the 1st respondent himself viz., appointment order dated 16.07.2007 and proposal to the CEO dated 18.12.2008.
(e) In as much as the 1st respondent was appointed only in an un-sanctioned post of Physical Education teacher on 15.07.2007, there was no occasion for the management to appoint him in a sanctioned post on the very next day I.e., on 16.07.2007 and to send proposal after about 1-1/2 years on 18.12.2008 that too to the CEO instead of to the competent authority viz., the DEO.
(f) Whereas 13 Physical Education teachers who are seniors than the 3rd respondent are working in the various schools under the same management in unsanctioned posts, waiting for accommodation in vacancies arising in sanctioned posts on seniority basis, the Order directing to approve the Writ petitioner in a sanctioned post creates manifest injustice to the said 13 seniors.” http://www.judis.nic.in 7
7. The Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, 2nd respondent herein, has filed a detailed counter affidavit, contending inter alia that Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School, Thiruvarangam, is a minority institution, run by R.C.Schools, rep by its Superintendent, Fr. L. Sagayaraj, Madurai Road, Sivagangai. The school enjoys the Permanent Recognition for the standards VI to X and temporary Recognition for standards XI to XII and receiving 100% grant from the state funds. The school being a minority school, is governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973 (Act of 1974) and the Rules made thereunder.
8. The 2nd respondent has further submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu have issued G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education Department, dated 29.12.1997, wherein, the revised norms for assessment of grant for teaching posts were fixed, which came into force with effect from 01.06.1998. It is submitted that the staff strength of Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School, Thiruvarangam, Ramanathapuram District is also fixed by the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1997, based on the strength of the students in the respective year. http://www.judis.nic.in 8
9. It is further submitted by the 2nd respondent that the appellant school, viz., Sacred Heard Higher Secondary School, Thiruvarangam, Ramanathapuram District, was sanctioned with three pots of Physical Education Teacher to handle Physical Education Subjects for students in standards VI to X. Clause (c) in Para 5(3) in G.O.Ms.No. 525, dated 29.12.1997, states that when the strength exceeds 250, one post of Physical Education Teacher would be sanctioned and for every additional strength of 300 students, one additional post of Physical Education Teacher would be sanctioned, subject to a maximum of three.
10. The 2nd respondent has further submitted that in Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School, Thiruvarangam, one A.Santhiyagu, working as Physical Education Director, died on 20.05.2005. Thereafter, one post of physical Education Teacher fell vacant, due to promotion of one Mr.M.Arul Prabahar, as Physical Education Director, on 01.07.2005. In the resultant vacancies, one Arockiadoss was appointed on 11.07.2005 and later, he left the school. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was appointed. However, the management has not stated, as to whether, the appointment was on a resultant vacancy or he was appointed only http://www.judis.nic.in 9 on consolidated basis. Till the date of filing of the counter, no proposals with original appointment order has reached the office of the officials. However, pursuant to the orders of this court, proposals, that too, without original appointment orders, was submitted and because of pendency of contempt petitions, the official respondents were compelled to approve the appointment of the writ petitioner/1st respondent herein.
11. The 2nd respondent has further submitted that one Physical Education Director and two Physical Education Teachers were already working without obtaining prior permission and since the third post of Physical Education Teacher was made surplus, the then Chief Educational Officer, 2nd respondent herein, has passed an order, dated 27.11.2008, transferring the post from the said school to the needy school, but the order inadvertently reads that it was with the teacher, the 1st respondent herein. Infact, the 1st respondent was not approved, as on that date. Since the school was having only the vacant post, without teacher, the 2nd respondent has included the word "teacher" with "post", though the teacher was not working in the said post. http://www.judis.nic.in 10 According to the 2nd respondent, eventhough the school is a minority school, which does not require prior permission to fill the vacancy, it is mandatory requirement, as to which, the management is required to inform the Government authorities, while filing the post, which is under surplus vide G.O.Ms.No.525.
12. The 2nd respondent has further submitted that the post alone was made surplus, inspite of that in fact, the first respondent has not been appointed in the regular sanctioned post by the management, which is evident vide letter, dated 15.07.2007 and confirmed in the another letter, dated 27.12.2013, issued by the Superintendent of R.C.Schools, R.C.Diocese of Sivagangai District. The said school Correspondent also confirmed the same by a letter, dated 05.03.2012. The pay acquaintance register maintained by the school management, in which, the writ petitioner has accepted the Consolidated salary and accepted the same, was not supported with any appointment order by management.
13. It is the further case of the 2nd respondent that though the http://www.judis.nic.in 11 said post was declared surplus, inadvertently by the then Chief Educational Officer, the 2nd respondent, in his proceedings dated 27.11.2008 had included the name of 1st respondent herein, in his order. Though under section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, the school management is entitled to appoint teachers, by when, the school required any grant then Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rule, 1974, made under the aforesaid Act, will have to be complied with under Rule 15(1) the number of Teachers employed in a Private Schools should not exceed the number of teacher, strength sanctioned by the Government from to time according to teacher pupil ratio.
14. The 2nd respondent has further submitted that a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court ought to have considered that as per G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1997, one Physical Education Teacher is permissible. When the students strength exceeds 250 and one additional post of Physical Educational Teacher would be sanctioned for every additional strength of 300 and not more than three physical Education Teacher's in all. Since the strength of the respondent school http://www.judis.nic.in 12 during the academic year 2007-2008 in standards VI to X was only 480 as against the required strength of 550 only two Physical Education Teacher's and one Physical Education Director are eligible and therefore, the appointment of 4th Physical Education Teacher, including Physical Education Director is not permissible.
15. According to the 2nd respondent, there is no prima facie case, for granting approval to the petitioner's appointment as Physical Education Teacher. However, a positive direction was issued by this Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench was also pleased to dismiss the Writ appeal and Review application against the Writ appeal. It is further submitted that a petition under Article 136 of the constitution of India seeking Special Leave to appeal, vide Special Leave Appeal (C)Nos. 25769-25770 of 2013, was filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court against the Judgment of the Division Bench, which was also dismissed. Owning to pendency of contempt application, appointment of said K.Prabhu came to be approved, subject to outcome of litigations, vide order, dated 15.06.2013, of the 3rd respondent herein, without the original appointment order and without proper proposal in this regard.
16. The 2nd respondent has further submitted that the Hon'ble http://www.judis.nic.in 13 Supreme Court, while examining the question, as to whether, prior permission should be made to fill the posts, even in relation to minority school, considered the effect of the legal requirement of the Government, satisfying the request of the school, in relation to availability of the post on the basis of the students strength, vide its judgment in Kolawana Gram Vikas Kendra v. State Gujarat reported in (2010) 1 SCC 133. In Paragraph 7, it observed that, "The requirement of this prior approval is necessitated because it is for the Government to see as to whether there were actually post available in the said institution as per the strength of students."
17. It is further submitted that even assuming without admitting that the 1st respondent herein was appointed on regular basis, he was functioning in a non sanctioned post, since in the said school, there is no such third Physical Education Teacher Post. Since as per the strength of the appellant-school, during the academic year 2007-2008, only two Physical Education Teachers were sanctioned. It is admitted by the 2nd respondent that in some of the monthly bill raised by the school, the name of the 1st respondent herein, was indicated, http://www.judis.nic.in 14 without disclosing any other particulars, this respondent did not disburse any grant-in-aid towards his salary. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent directed the school to submit monthly bill without indicating the name of S.Prabhu for the reason that he was appointed only on a consolidated pay, and in an unsanctioned post. Accordingly, the school submitted monthly bill without indicating the name of S.Prabhu.
18. According to the 2nd respondent, on perusal of the documents, it is understood that the school appointed the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, as Physical Education Teacher only on consolidated pay not in sanctioned vacancy, and the school paid salary to him under their own fund. Further, there is no original proceedings in appointing S.Prabhu as Physical Education Teacher issued by the Superintendent of Schools. The original Appointment order of the Correspondent appointing S.Prabhu as Physical Education Teacher is also not available in the proposal submitted by the school.
19. The 2nd respondent has further submitted that the school is http://www.judis.nic.in 15 eligible to have one Director of Physical Education and 2 Physical Education Teachers as per the student strength and already one approved Director of Physical Education and two approved Physical Education Teachers are working in the school. Already one teacher is working in the school with need of 2 hours of additional workload, and sanction of the 3rd post would cause additional financial loss to the Government, and the school is not eligible to have 3rd post of Physical Education Teacher, and the 3rd post has already been surrendered to the Director of School Education.
20. To summarise, the 2nd respondent has submitted that there are two appointment orders, originals of which are not forthcoming till today from either side. One made on 15-07-2007 appointing petitioner on consolidated basis. Another on 16-07-2007, on regular basis. The management is disputing the appointment of petitioner. To substantiate the same, the original order is also not forthcoming. The proposals received by this respondents are not in order, as there is no original appointment order. Based on 27-11-2008 order by the then CEO, no right could be claimed, as it is an inadvertent order, on the face of it. http://www.judis.nic.in 16 On the said date, said K. Prabhu's appointment was never approved. Therefore showing his name in the said proceedings is wrong. Including the name of the petitioner in the salary will not give him any right, as he was not paid as per the claim and later his name was deleted. The issue involves disputed question of fact, as to whether the petitioner was appointed on consolidated basis on 15-07-2007 as claimed by management or was appointed on regular time scale on 16-07-2007 as claimed by the petitioner, which cannot be gone into by this Hon'ble court under Article 226 of Indian Constitution and which has to be adjudicated by competent civil court.
21. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
22. Materials on record discloses that immediately after receipt of the impugned proceedings, dated 27.11.2008, in reply to the above said order, the appellant school has addressed a letter to the Chief Education Officer, Ramanathapuram, on 18.12.2008, informing that even prior to 1998, the appellant school was sanctioned with 3 Physical http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Education Teachers for classes 6 to 10 and 1 Physical Education Director for Classes 11 and 12 and since, as on 01.08.2008, there were 1343 students in classes 6 to 10 and, as per G.O.Ms.No.52, dated 29.12.1997, it cannot be said that the 3rd Physical Education Teacher post is surplus, and therefore requested to approve all the three physical education teacher posts. As a reminder to the above said letter dated 18.12.2008, giving additional particulars for approval of three physical education teachers for classes 6 to 10, the appellant school has written another letter to the Chief Educational Officer, annexed at page No.16 of the typed set of papers filed by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, to the effect that from 16.07.2007, one S.Prabhu has been appointed and working as a physical education teacher and his name also finds place in the attendance register as well as in salary bills.
23. W.P.(MD)No.3879 of 2009 has been filed by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner in the month of April, 2009. Along with the writ petition, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner has filed M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2009, praying for an order of interim injunction, restraining the appellant as well as respondents 2 and 3 herein from terminating his http://www.judis.nic.in 18 service as Physical Education Teacher in the appellant's school, pending disposal of the writ petition. Writ Court, while ordering notice to the respondents therein, namely the appellant as well as respondents 2 and 3 herein, by order dated 29.04.2009, has granted interim injunction. Ultimately, the writ petition came to be allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 30.07.2010.
24. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2010, made in W.P. (MD)No.3879 of 2009, the respondents 2 and 3 herein, namely, the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram and the District Educational Officer, Paramakudi, have filed writ appeal (MD) No.136 of 2011. 1st Respondent therein is the writ petitioner and the 2nd respondent is the School. A Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dismissed W.A.(MD)No.136 of 2011, by order dated 01.02.2011, holding as under:
“This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 30.07.2010 made in W.P.(MD)No.3879 of 2009.
2.The first respondent herein filed the said Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the first appellant herein and for a consequential direction to the appellants to approve the appointment of the first respondent as Physical http://www.judis.nic.in 19 Education Teacher in the second respondent school from the date of his appointment with all consequential benefits.
3.A learned Single Judge, by order dated 30.07.2010, allowed the said Writ Petition holding that the second respondent aided school is having total students strength of 489 in Higher Secondary Sections and in High School Sections, the total students strength is 1343. As per the norms prescribed, if the students strength exceeds 400, in Higher Secondary School, one Physical Director is permissible. The learned Single Judge, following a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Director of School Education v. K.uma, reported in 2010 (2) MLJ 277, quashed the impugned order passed by the first appellant and directed the appellants to approve the appointment of the first respondent as Physical Education Teacher.
4.We are in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench in the said judgment, cited supra, and the learned single Judge while following the Writ Petition has rightly relied on the said Judgment. There is no merit in the Writ Appeal and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The appellants are directed to iimplement the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.07.2010 made in W.P.(MD)No. 3879 of 2009 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.” http://www.judis.nic.in 20
25. After dismissal of the writ appeal, the department has filed a review application [Rev.A.(MD)SR No.16648 of 2011,] with a delay of 236 days. While considering the miscellaneous petition MP(MD)No.1 of 2012 to condone the delay, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has considered the merits of the review application also and dismissed both the condone delay petition and the review application.
26. Material on record further discloses that alleging that the order of the writ court has not been complied with, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner has filed Contempt Petition (MD)No.26 of 2011, against the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, the District Educational Officer, Paramakudi and the Correspondent of Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School, Thiruvarangam. When the contempt petition came up for hearing, submission has been made by Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the appellant School, 3rd respondent in the contempt petition, that they came to know about the filing of the writ petition by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner only after the disposal of the Writ Appeal W.A.(MD)No.136 of 2011 and http://www.judis.nic.in 21 therefore they have filed a review application in Rev.A.(MD)SR No.31465 of 2012, along with an application to condone the delay of 544 days. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 08.02.2013, has ordered that, "11.In the result, the contempt petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the proposals submitted by the management within a period of four weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this order. The Review Petition S.R.(MD)No.31465 of 2012 is closed. However, if the respondent management has any grievance, it is always open to the respondent management to agitate their grievance in the manner known to law.”
27. Pursuant to the above order passed in the contempt petition, the District Educational Officer, Paramakudi, the 3rd respondent, in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.2492/2009, dated 10.06.2013, issued orders granting approval to the appointment of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, as Physical Education Teacher, with effect from 16.07.2007, in the time scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000/-. Thereafter, by proceedings Na.Ka.No.3492/Aa.4/2009, dated http://www.judis.nic.in 22 14.06.2013, the District Educational Officer, Paramakudi, issued directions to the appellant school to sent necessary proposals for the release of grant-in-aid arrears.
28. Material on record also discloses that Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 13149 and 13150 of 2013, filed by the official respondents, has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.08.2013. From the above, it is clear that the issue has attained finality and the official respondents have also granted approval for the appointment of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner on 10.06.2013 and requested the appellant school to send proposals for the release of grant-in-aid arrears. At this juncture, the appellant school has come forward with the present writ appeal.
29. To a specific query as to how the present appeal filed by the Management is maintainable, when the writ appeal filed by the department, to which the appellant school is also a party, has reached finality and the department has also granted approval to the appointment of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, http://www.judis.nic.in 23 learned counsel for the appellant school, submitted that though the school has been arrayed as a party to the writ proceedings, they came to know about the proceedings only when the writ appeal filed by the department came to be disposed of and therefore the school did not have the opportunity to put-forth their case, either before the writ court or before the Hon'ble Division Bench, that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner was appointed only in an un-sanctioned post, on consolidated pay, on 15.07.2007 and that there was no occasion for the school to appoint him, on the very next day i.e. 16.07.2007 and to send proposals for approval, after 1-1/2 years, i.e. on 18.12.2008. In short, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged appointment letter dated 16.07.2007 and the proposal letter dated 18.12.2008 are fabricated documents.
30. Per contra, Mr.V.Panneerselvam, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the appellant school was very well aware of the writ proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner and therefore it is not correct to contend that they they were not aware of the writ proceedings and did not have the opportunity to put-forth their http://www.judis.nic.in 24 case. Drawing the attention of this Court to the letter of the appellant school, dated 23.06.2009, addressed to the District Educational Officer, Paramakudi, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner further submitted that from the contents of the said letter, it is very clear that the school was aware the writ proceedings. He further submitted that the said contention of the appellant school has already been considered by this Court in the contempt proceedings and rejected the review petition filed by the appellant school. He also produced copies of the cause lists of the writ court for the hearings on 15.07.2010, 16.07.2010, 20.07.2010, 21.7.2010, 23.07.2010 and 30.07.2010 as well as the cause list of the Hon'ble Division Bench for the hearing on 31.01.2011 obtained from the Registry of this Court under RTI Act, in support of his submission that the appellant school was served with summons and they were aware of the proceedings.
In view of the above, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions is also closed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 25 Index:yes/no (S.MANIKUMAR, J.) (G.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Internet:yes/no 22.03.2017 gb/skm To 1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 4.The District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi at Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. http://www.judis.nic.in 26 S.MANIKUMAR, J. AND G.CHOCKALINGAM, J. skm Judgment in Writ Appeal(MD)No.813 of 2013 M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013 Date: 22.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in