Madurai: The Madras High Court has observed that the judicial review power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is to ensure the process by which a decision is taken by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the statute or rules, but not the decision itself.
Judge SM Subramaniam made the comments while disposing of a plea from a government subsidized primary school teacher, A Thilakam, from Pudukottai district, challenging the punishment order imposed on her.
The judge said that in the present case, the aggrieved person must exhaust the legal remedies provided by the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973.
The judge observed that although the applicant argued that the sentence was imposed on her due to personal revenge and extraneous circumstances, this court cannot fully investigate such disputed facts.
The judge observed that if a written request is considered before the full adjudication of facts and circumstances, there is a possibility of omission or error. Therefore, in all circumstances, the aggrieved person must be allowed to exhaust the legal remedy, which is available to redress grievances effectively. Thus, the rule is to prefer the appeal and the examination of a written request is the exception.
Taking into account that the first appeal was decided by the co-director of primary education (subsidized schools), the judge declared that the petitioner should go to court for the second appeal.
Therefore, the judge ordered the registry of this court to transfer all the documents of the case to the main sub-court of Pudukottai. The court will decide the case as soon as possible.