The Correspondent v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 08.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR The Correspondent Melapallivasal Girls Higher Secondary School, Ilayangudi, Sivagangai District.
... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Chief Educational Officer Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
4.The District Educational Officer (Secondary Education), Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
... Respondents 1/8
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent Chief Educational Officer in Na. Ka.No.4116/a2/2024 dated 16.12.2025 quash the same and further direct the 3rd respondent Chief Educational Officer herein to approve forthwith the appointment of S.A.Sabeer Ahamed as Office Assistant w.e.f., 02.08.2021 in the petitioner's school namely, Melapallivasal Girls Higher Secondary School, Ilayangudi and disburse the grant-in-aid towards his salary with all attendant benefits from the said date.
For Petitioner : Mrs.A.Amala For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner school is before this Court challenging the proceedings bearing No.Na. Ka.No.4116/a2/2024 dated 16.12.2025, whereby the 3rd respondent refused to approve the appointment of an Office Assistant, by name, S.A.Sabeer Ahamed, on the ground that there 2/8
was a surplus staff available in the District and therefore, in terms of G.O.(Ms)No.238 School Education (SE 6(1)) Department, dated 13.11.2018, and the surplus staff is required to be accommodated in the post of Office Assistant available in the petitioner school.
2. Heard Mrs.A.Amala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The respondents filed counter affidavit reiterating the stand of the 3rd respondent as stated in the impugned proceedings.
4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondents in placing reliance on G.O.(Ms)No.238 dated 13.11.2018 while issuing the impugned proceedings dated 16.12.2025 is totally illegal and arbitrary as the operation of the said Government Order was stayed by this Court on 14.06.2019 and the said stay is operating as on date.
3/8
5. She further contended that the very same 3rd respondent having refused to approve the appointment of the Office Assistant in the petitioner school subsequently, through proceedings No.K:/K/vz;/ 1465/m2/2023 dated 12.05.2023 approved the appointment of the Office Assistant in some other school within the same District, though the candidate covered by the said proceedings was appointed much later to the appointment of Mr.S.A.Sabeer Ahamed, without taking into consideration the orders issued in G.O.(Ms)No.238, dated 13.11.2018. In spite of taking a specific ground in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and a copy of the said proceedings dated 12.05.2023 is also placed in the typed set of papers, the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent is totally silent on this aspect.
6. It is also not in dispute that the operation of G.O.(Ms) No.238 dated 13.11.2018 has been stayed by this Court and the said interim stay order is still operating. Thereby, the said G.O.(Ms)No.238 dated 13.11.2018 cannot be said to be in operation. Therefore, the action of the 3rd respondent in placing reliance on Government Order, which is 4/8
not in operation to refuse to grant approval for the appointment of the Office Assistant in the petitioner school is totally contrary to law and arbitrary. Further there is no justification made by the respondents for approving the appointment of an Office Assistant in some other school, under similar circumstances, having rejected to grant approval in respect of the Office Assistant appointed in the petitioner school, also strengthen the case of the petitioner.
7. In the light of the above and taking into consideration of the fact that the operation of G.O.(Ms)No.238 dated 13.11.2018 is stayed by this Court and the same is continuing for the past about more than 5 years, the impugned order issued solely placing reliance on the said Government Order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.4116/a2/2024 dated 16.12.2025, is hereby quashed and taking into consideration of the fact that the 3rd respondent 5/8
has in fact approved the appointment of Office Assistant in another school under similar situation, the 3rd respondent is directed to grant approval for appointment of Mr.S.A.Sabeer Ahamed as Office Assistant in the petitioner school, on the similar lines as was granted in favour of another appointment in another school through proceedings No.K:/K/vz;/1465/m2/2023 dated 12.05.2023. The 3rd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders as directed above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
08.04.2026 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rm 6/8
To 1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Chief Educational Officer Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
4.The District Educational Officer (Secondary Education), Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
7/8
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR , J.
RM 08.04.2026 8/8