Madras High CourtWP(MD)/25802/2025disposed of

Anbuselvi Dk v. The Director Of School Education

2025-10-15Honourable Mr Justice K.Kumaresh Babu4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 15/10/2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and WMP(MD)Nos. 20191 and 20193 of 2025 D.K.Anbuselvi, ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Director of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai.

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

3. The District Educational Officer, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

4. The Correspondent, West Tirunelveli Higher Secondary School, Nallur.

... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in respect of order passed by 3rd respondent in Aa.Thi.Mu. No.5802/Aa2/2023 1/4

dated 13.08.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner and disburse all the service and monetary benefits from the date of the appointment (ie. 03.06.2019).

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Chella Pandian, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in respect of order passed by third respondent in Aa.Thi.Mu. No.5802/Aa2/2023 dated 13.08.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner and disburse all the service and monetary benefits from the date of the appointment (ie. 03.06.2019).

2. The issue involved in this writ petition is with regard to the rejection of the proposal sent by the fourth respondent School with regard to the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner had been appointed as a Tamil pandit on 03.06.2019 that is before the cut of date namely 31.03.2021, from which date, the corporate / joint management surplus could also been taken into 2/4

consideration. Similarly, the availability of a graduate teacher to appoint to the said post is also no longer res integra, as the management can appoint overlooking the qualified teacher available, as promotion is not a matter of right. Such teachers also seems to have not sought for an appointment in the said vacancy in which the petitioner had been appointed.

3. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the reasons attributed in Sl.No.5,7 and 8 are arbitrary and hence the same are set aside. The fourth respondent is directed to resubmit the proposal by clarifying the other queries raised by the second respondent in the order impugned herein within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the second respondent is directed to consider such proposal within a period of six weeks.

4. With the above direction, this Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 15.10.2025 NCC : yes / no Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no pnn 3/4

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

pnn To