The Joint Director Of School Education v. S Arul Raj

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.03.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Rev.Aplc(MD)No.35 of 2026 and C.M.P.(MD)No.3734 of 2026 1.The Joint Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

2.The District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

... Petitioners Vs.

1.S.Arul Raj 2.The Correspondent, St. Mary's Boys Higher Secondary School, Millerpuram - 628 008, Thoothukudi.

... Respondents PRAYER:- Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code praying to review the order dated 23.08.2023 made in W.A.(MD)No.519 of 2022. 1/4

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Baskaran, Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr.J.Ashok, Addl. Govt. Pleader For Respondents : Ms.A.Amala for R1 No Appearance for R2

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.) The prayer in this Review Application is seeking to review the order passed in W.A.(MD)No.519 of 2022 dated 23.08.2023.

2. The brief factual background in which the review arises is that the first respondent/Writ Petitioner, who is a Teacher being B.T. Assistant (Science), got the post graduate degree in Economics and sought for the incentive increment. When the same was refused, he approached this Court. The Writ Petition was allowed and the Writ Appeal was also dismissed. The review is now sought on the ground that the degree is not in the relevant subject in which the person is teaching.

3. Apart from the present order, in several orders, including W.A.(MD) No.2748 of 2025, after considering the relevant judgments 2/4

and Government Orders, it has been held that such a condition does not exist in the scheme. The contention that a different degree would not be useful to students also, in our view, cannot be sustained, particularly as the education system presently follows a multidisciplinary approach. Therefore, the argument that it is an irrelevant subject is pedantic and not supported by any scientific report, much less by any express clause in the scheme. In the absence of any such express clause, we do not see any ground for interference.

4. For all the above reasons, the Review Application stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. [N.S.K., J.] & [D.B.C., J.] 13.03.2026 Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No vsm 3/4

N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.

AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

vsm 13.03.2026 4/4