S.Ramasamy v. The Director Of Elementary Education

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 02/04/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN and CMP(MD)No.4183 of 2026 S.Ramasamy ... Appellant Vs.

1. The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 625 006.

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

... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P.(MD)No.22775 of 2021 dated 11.09.2025. For Appellant : Mr.W.Pamelin For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader 1/5

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order made in W.P. (MD)No.22775 of 2021 dated 11.09.2025.

2.

The appellant/writ petitioner was terminated from service by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 22.02.1989, against which, he claims to have filed a review petition on time before the 1st respondent to review the order of termination passed by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, in 2003, the appellant has approached this Court and this Court has directed the 1st respondent to pass final orders on the review petition of the appellant. However, the 1st respondent by order dated 25.11.2021 rejected the review petition of the appellant. Challenging the same, the appellant filed writ petition and this Court by impugned order, holding that the conduct of the appellant would clearly show that he is not really aggrieved by the termination order and further since the appellant is aged 70 years, question of entertaining the writ petition does not arise, 2/5

dismissed the writ petition. As against that order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

3.

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

4.

As rightly held by the Writ Court, if the petitioner was really interested in getting job, he would have been vigilant in seeking remedies from this Court. When the 1st respondent did not comply with the direction issued by this Court to dispose of the appellant's review petition in 2003 itself, the appellant ought to have taken steps to file contempt petition, whereas he slept over the matter till the 1st respondent rejects his revision petition on 25.11.2021. This attitude of the appellant clearly demonstrates his non-interest in pursuing the matter. Further, the appellant is aged 70 years and therefore, question of either re-visiting the termination order or the rejection of the review petition does not arise. It is well settled that inordinate delay defeats equity and on that score also, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal. 3/5

5.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] 02.04.2026 bala To

1. The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 625 006.

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

4/5

N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

bala 02.04.2026 5/5