P.Muniammal v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA P. Muniammal .... Petitioner vs.

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort.St. George, Chennai- 600 009.

2. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

3. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tindivanam Office at Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

4. The Block Educational Officer, The Block Education Office at Kanai Block, Villupuram District - 605 204.

5.The Correspondent, M. D. Aided Primary School, Kakkanur and Post, Kanai Block, Villupuram District - 605 206.

...

Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

issue Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher appointed in the 5th respondent school based on the proposal sent by the 5th respondent which was resubmitted on 28-09-2023 and 12-11-2023 with salary and all attendant benefits from the date of her initial appointment i.e., from 04.02.2022 forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.P. Ebenezer Paul For Respondents : Mr.S. Prabhakaran Govt. Advocate - - - - - -

ORDER

By consent of both the parties, this writ petition has been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. Mr.S. Prabhakaran, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher appointed in the 5th respondent school based on the proposal sent by the 5th respondent which was resubmitted on 28-09-2023 and 12.-11-2023 with salary and all attendant benefits from the date of her initial appointment i.e., from 04.02.2022 forthwith.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the promotion vacancy post i.e. the vacancy which arose due to the promotion of one Esther Merina who was promoted as Headmistress on 15-102015, vide Meeting of the Educational Sub Committee Resolution dated 01-022022. Subsequently, the Correspondent of the 5th respondent school has forwarded a proposal, dated 04.04.2022 to the 4th respondent seeking approval for petitioner's appointment and for which, the 4th respondent, vide proceedings dated 07.06.2022 directed the 5th respondent to furnish a declaration with regard to teachers strength in the said school (non-surplus teachers). It is the contention of the petitioner that as certain queries were raised by the respondents, again the proposal was resubmitted on 28.09.2023 and 12.11.

2023 with requisite documents. It is the case of the petitioner that despite forwarding repeated representations by way of proposals, the petitioner's appointment was not approved, till date. Under such circumstances, this writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initial proposal seeking approval of the petitioner's appointment was sent by the 5th respondent, much earlier i.e., before the cut off date. However, the respondents have not considered the aforesaid proposal, instead they instructed the 5th respondent school to submit a declaration for certain queries raised by them and hence the

last proposal was dated 12.11.2023. However, he prays before this Court for issuance of a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the aforesaid proposal (first proposal) on merits, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

6. Mr.S. Prabhakaran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to the letter issued by the 1st respondent, dated 16.04.2025 and submitted that the proposal was received by the respondents belatedly and in the issue involved, the cut off date for considering the proposal was fixed by the respondents as 13.01.2023. Hence, this Court may issue suitable directions in this regard.

7. From the aforesaid arguments, it is noticed whether the proposal for approving the petitioner's appointment was sent before the cut off date fixed by the respondents or not. Further, the petitioner has not established any documentary proof before this Court with regard to the acknowledgement for receipt of the aforesaid proposal by the respondents. Hence, it is for the respondents to decide the issue on hand, more particularly, the date of the aforesaid proposal received by them. However, it is evident that no orders were passed, till date by the respondents on merits of the aforesaid proposal.

8. Be that as it may. This Court, without going into the merits of the case, disposes of this writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to consider the

proposal for approval of petitioner's appointment, which is originally dated 04.04.2022 and resubmitted on 28.09.2023 and 12.11.2023 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

04.09.2025 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vsi2 To

1. The Secretary, The Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Fort.St. George, Chennai- 600 009.

2. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

vsi2

3. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tindivanam Office at Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

4. The Block Educational Officer, The Block Education Office at Kanai Block, Villupuram District - 605 204.

5.The Correspondent, M. D. Aided Primary School, Kakkanur and Post, Kanai Block, Villupuram District - 605 206.

04.09.2025