The Government Of Tamil Nadu v. Adi Dravidar Primary School

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA in W.A(MD)No.488 of 2020 and C.M.P(MD)No.20540 of 2025 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

3.The District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

... Review Applicants / Appellants Vs.

Adi Dravidar Primary School, Represented by its Secretary, Moopanpatti, Kovilpatti Union, Thoothukudi District.

... Respondent / Respondent 1/4

Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 r/w Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C read with Section 114 of CPC to review the order dated 19.03.2025 passed in W.A(MD)No.488 of 2020 and set aside the same. For Applicants : Mr.T.Amjad Khan Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan

ORDER

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) Heard both sides.

2.The order dated 19.03.2005 passed by us in WA(MD)No.488 of 2020 is sought to be reviewed. The State is the review applicant. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the review applicant / State points out that the writ petitioner had appointed a person as Headmaster of the Primary School even though he did not have five years teaching experience. He drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1951 of 2023 (The State of Tamil Nadu & Others Vs Nehru Middle School & Another) wherein it was held that a person who was appointed as Headmaster despite not possessing the required 5 years of teaching experience cannot be allowed to receive the salary of B.T Assistant until he/she completes the requisite 2/4

5 years of experience. Even though we were conscious of the said judgment, our hands were tied on account of the direction given in WP(MD)No.16449 of 2012 dated 02.12.2016. In Paragraph No.3 of our order dated 19.03.2025, the directions given in the earlier order dated 02.12.2016 in WP(MD)No.16449 of 2012 had been extracted in extenso. In the said order, the issue of the writ petitioner not possessing 5 years of teaching experience had been specifically dealt with. That order had become final. We were therefore obliged to give effect to the same. We would even remark that our order is rather consequential in nature. Without questioning the primary order that had become final, the applicant cannot seek a review of the consequential order. There is no error in our order.

3.This Review Application stands dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [G.R.S., J.] [R.P., J.] 23.02.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA/skm 3/4

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

AND R.POORNIMA , J.

MGA in W.A(MD)No.488 of 2020 and C.M.P(MD)No.20540 of 2025 23.02.2026 4/4