Jesi Anlet M v. The Director Of School Education
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 17/11/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and WMP(MD).Nos.15184 and 15185 of 2025 M. Jesi Anlet, ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil - 629 001.
3. The District Educational Officer (Secondary), Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4. The Correspondent, St. Antonys Higher Secondary School, Kurusady, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 629 004.
... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of Direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd 1/6
respondent Chief Educational Officer to approve the appointment of petitioner as BT Assistant in History in the 4th respondent school namely, St. Antonys Higher Secondary school, Kurusady, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. w.e.f. 01.08.2022 with all attendant benefits including arrears of salary and allowances.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Xavier Rajini, For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader.
(For R1 to R3)
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent Chief Educational Officer to approve the appointment of petitioner as BT Assistant in History in the 4th respondent school namely, St. Antonys Higher Secondary school, Kurusady, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. w.e.f. 01.08.2022 with all attendant benefits including arrears of salary and allowances.
2. The case of the petitioner is that in a BT Assistant - History post that fell vacant in the fourth respondent school due to the retirement of the incumbent and the petitioner was appointed with effect from 2/6
01.08.2022. A proposal seems to have been submitted by the fourth respondent school for approval of appointment of the petitioner, but however the same had not been approved on the ground that the petitioner had not passed TET. Hence, the petitioner has submitted various representations requesting the authorities to approve the appointment of the petitioner.
3. Learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that the proposal of the school had not been enclosed in the typed set of papers except the order of appointment. If the proposal had been forwarded by the fourth respondent school, then the same would be considered on merits and law.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
5. Considering the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner has been appointed as early as 01.08.2022 and the proposal has also been forwarded by the fourth respondent school in respect of the approval of 3/6
appointment of the petitioner, there shall be a direction to the third respondent to consider the proposal, if any sent by the fourth respondent for the appointment of the petitioner in BT Assistant - History on 01.08.2022 and consider the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 17.11.2025 NCC : yes /no Index : yes / no Internet :yes / no pnn 4/6
To
1. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil - 629 001.
3. The District Educational Officer (Secondary), Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
5/6
K.KUMARESH BABU, J pnn
ORDER
IN WP(MD) No.19734 of 2025 and WMP(MD).Nos.15184 and 15185 of 2025 Date : 17/11/2025 6/6