The Correspondent v. Aravindan,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA in W.A(MD)No.960 of 2019 The Correspondent, C.M.S.Higher Secondary School, Srivilliputtur - 626 125, ... Petitioner / Petitioner Vs.

1.Aravindan, Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar, Then Mathankumar, Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar, 2.S.Indra Gandi, District Educational Officer (Secondary), Sivakasi, 1/5

Then Thiruvilliputhur, ... Contemnors / Appellants 4 & 5 Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempts of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents herein for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 09.06.2025 in Writ Appeal (MD) No.960 of 2019 under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.P.Senthil Government Advocate

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.) The Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 09.06.2025 gave the following directions:

"17.In respect of individual cases falling within the ambit of the principles considered by this Court in the aforementioned paragraphs, those individuals if they are otherwise eligible and falling within the eligible category, then they are at liberty to approach the authorities. In all other cases where appointments are made to the Vocational Instructors post after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE) Department, dated 2/5

06.01.2009, approval of appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

18.It is made clear that if those Vocational Instructors appointed prior to G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE) Department, dated 06.01.2009 are qualified, appointed in the sanctioned post and eligible as per Rules, their proposals are to be considered in accordance with Act and Rules."

2.The petitioner herein was appointed on 12.07.2006. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar had issued proceedings dated 30.10.2025. The petitioner's request has been negatived.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said order has been erroneously passed.

4.We are not in a position to go into the merits of the matter. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid proceedings, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law. 3/5

5.This Contempt Petition stands closed.

[G.R.S., J.] [R.P, J.] 15.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA To 1.The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar, 2.The District Educational Officer (Secondary), Sivakasi, 3.The District Educational Officer (Secondary), Thiruvilliputhur, 4/5

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

AND R.POORNIMA , J.

MGA in W.A(MD)No.960 of 2019 15.06.2026 5/5