Madras High CourtWP/11906/2026disposed of with direction

Tmt.N.Deepagopika v. The Director

2026-03-27Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Tmt.N.Deepagopika W/o.Yuva Balaji No.9/5, Pary Colony Ranipet, Ranipet District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Director Directorate of Elementary Education DPI Campus, College Road Nungambakkam, Chennai 6.

2. The Joint Director (aided School) Directorate of Elementary Education DPI Campus, College Road Nungambakkam, Chennai 6.

3. The Chief Educational Officer O/o.the Chief Educational Officer 4th Floor, Collectorate Campus Ranipet, Ranipet District.

4. The District Educational Officer (elementary) O/o.the District Educational Officer (Elementary) 4th Floor, Collectorate Campus Ranipet, Ranipet District.

5. The Block Educational Officer O/o.the Block Educational Officer Walaja East Range, Near Commercial Tax Office Ranipet, Ranipet District.

6. The Collector, Collectorate Ranipet, Ranipet District.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records of the 4th respondent pertaining to the impugned Na.Ka.No. 2334/A4/2025 dated 28.07.2025 and to quash the same as erroneous, baseless and frivolous and consequently direct the respondents to take action against the convict pursuant to the representation letter dated 21.07.2025 and may pass. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.G.Murugendran For Respondent(s):

Mrs.Mythreya Chandru, Special Government Pleader Order This writ petition is filed challenging the reply notice of the 4th respondent, whereby it was refused to take disciplinary action against a convict, who holds the post of correspondent, head master and a teacher of the Sri Krishna Vidhyalaya Aided Middle School

2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner lodged a complaint on 23.05.2018 against Mrs.Jaisri Kothai, who holds the post of correspondent, head master of an educational agency and a Teacher of the Sri Krishna Vidhyalaya Aided Middle School for the allegation that after the death of the petitioner's mother, the said Jaisri Kothai had created forged documents and obtained the jewels of the petitioner mother, which was kept in SBI Bank weighed about

202.4 grams worth Rs.3,00,000/-, by forging the signature of the petitioner. A criminal case was registered against the said person. After completion of trial, judgment was passed, convicting N.Jaisri Kothai. Aggrieved by the said order, the convict had also filed a Criminal Appeal, wherein interim bail was granted. However, the conviction has not been suspended.

3. The act of the convict made her unqualified to teach professionally. Hence, the petitioner sent representation dated 21.07.2025 to all the respondents, praying to take necessary disciplinary against the convict. The 4th respondent issued a reply notice dated 28.07.2025, stating that the 4th respondent had no power to take disciplinary action against the convict and directing the petitioner to send a representation to the School's correspondent. Challenging the reply notice, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the convict herself was the headmaster and the correspondent of the aided school and no disciplinary action was taken without her permission, as she holds the highest post in the government - aided school. In such circumstances, sending a representation to the School would serve no purpose and thus, the reply given by the 4th respondent is erroneous. When the management of a school fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the competent authority is empowered to take appropriate action against such school. Hence, prays for appropriate orders.

5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that this Court may set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the 4th respondent. The said official may conduct enquiry and will pass appropriate orders.

6. Heard both sides and also perused the materials available on record.

7. In view of the fair submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, sets aside the impugned order of the 4th respondent dated 28.07.2025 and the matter is remanded back to the 4th respondent, who shall conduct enquiry after providing opportunity to the School Committee and the necessary persons including the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

27-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SK