The Correspondent v. J.K.Suriyanath
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and C.M.P(MD)Nos.16022, 16240 & 16241 of 2025 1.W.A(MD)No.2871 of 2025:
1.The Correspondent, Sourashtra Higher Secondary School, 110, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai - 09.
2.The Head Master, Sourashtra Higher Secondary School, 110, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai - 09.
... Appellants Vs.
1.J.K.Suriyanath ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2.The Joint Director (Vocational), Directorate of School Education, D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai - 6.
1/11
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District, Thallakulam, Madurai.
4.The District Educational Officer, Melur Educational District, Melur, Madurai District.
... Respondents 2 to 5/ Respondents 1 to 3 5.The Inspector of Police, Theppakkulam Police Station, Madurai.
... 5th Respondent (R - 5 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 26.09.2025 in W.A(MD)No.2871 of 2025) PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.29647 of 2024 dated 28.08.2025 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Govindarajan for Mr.R.Murali For Respondents : Ms.S.Modharshini (for R1) : Mr.J.Ashok (for R2 to R4) Additional Government Pleader : Mr.P.Kottaichamy (for R5) Government Advocate 2/11
2.W.A(MD)No.2899 of 2025:
1.The Joint Director (Vocational), Directorate of School Education, D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai - 6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District, Tallakulam, Madurai.
4.The District Educational Officer, Melur Educational District, Melur, Madurai District.
... Appellants/Respondents 1 to 3 Vs.
1.J.K.Suriyanath ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2.The Correspondent, Sourashtra Higher Secondary School, 110, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai - 09.
3.The Head Master, Sourashtra Higher Secondary School, 110, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai - 09.
... Respondents 2 & 3/ Respondents 4 & 5 PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.29647 of 2024 dated 28.08.2025 on the file of this Court.
3/11
For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Ms.S.Modharshini (for R1) : Mr.K.Govindarajan (for R2) for Mr.R.Murali 3.W.A(MD)No.2900 of 2025:
1.The Joint Director (Vocational), Directorate of School Education, D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai - 6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District, Tallakulam, Madurai.
4.The District Educational Officer, Melur Educational District, Melur, Madurai District.
... Appellants/Respondents 1 to 3 Vs.
1.J.K.Suriyanath ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2.The Correspondent, Sourashtra Higher Secondary School, 110, Kamarajar Salai,Madurai - 09.
3.The Head Master, Sourashtra Higher Secondary School, 110, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai - 09.
... Respondents 2 & 3/ Respondents 4 & 5 4/11
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.22772 of 2025 dated 28.08.2025 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Ms.S.Modharshini (for R1) : Mr.K.Govindarajan (for R2) for Mr.R.Murali COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.) Challenge is to an order dated 28.08.2025 in cross-appeals instituted at the instance of the Correspondent and Headmaster of the Sourashtra Higher Secondary School in W.A(MD)No.2871 of 2025 passed in W.P(MD)No.29647 of 2024 and at the instance of the Government in W.A(MD)Nos.2899 and 2900 of 2025 passed in W.P(MD)Nos.29647 of 2024 and 22772 of 2025.
2.These two Writ Petitions were filed by R1, one seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash relieving order dated 19.09.2024 and other seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct 5/11
the release of his salary and all attendant monetary benefits for the period from 01.09.2024 upto date.
3.The writ petitions came to be allowed and a series of directions had been given. The directions read as follows: "10. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed with the following directions:
10.1. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith, with continuity of service and all notional benefits and other service-related entitlements.
10.2. The respondents are further directed to release the petitioner's salary and all attendant monetary benefits for the period from 01.09.2024 till date, based on the petitioner's representation dated 21.07.2025.
10.3. The fifth respondent School is directed not to take any action as against the petitioner till his retirement in relation to the alleged discrepancy in his educational documents until his retirement."
4.The basis of the dispute, as projected by Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned counsel for appellants in W.A(MD)No.2871 of 2025, pertains to the date of birth of R1.
5.According to the appellants, R1's date of birth is 15.06.1964, whereas, according to R1, his date of birth is 15.06.1966. 6/11
6.Though each of them have drawn attention to various documents in support of their averments, we are disinclined to look into what constitutes a pure question of fact.
7.Neither the authorities nor the School contest directions 10.1 and 10.2 extracted above. They are, however, aggrieved seriously by the direction contained in para 10.3, which restrains the school from taking any action as against the writ petitioner till his retirement in relation to the alleged discrepancy in his educational documents. We are in agreement that no such restriction can be placed either on the authorities or upon the school. The direction in para 10.3 is quashed. 8.Learned Judge, in para 6, has noted that despite several opportunities granted to the respondents, no counter was filed. This is a serious lapse, as, had a counter been filed before the Court, much of the controversy could have been sorted out then and there.
9. However, the learned Judge records in para 7 that written submissions dated 26.08.2025 had been filed by the Correspondent and Headmaster as well stating that it was only at the instance of the 7/11
Government that the School Management was compelled to take disciplinary action as well as initiate criminal proceedings against R1. 10.According to R1, though the above written submissions were not furnished to him, the Court had taken them on record and based on those submissions, found that the action of the school was both unjust and malafide.
11.All these matters must be looked into by the competent authority in the course of a proper enquiry, which shall be conducted in this case. We hence direct the competent authority, ie., educational agency of the school, to initiate an enquiry forthwith, as R1 is stated to be on the verge of retirement, having only about 10 months of service left.
12.The emphasis on conduct of enquiry by the educational agency is as the agency comprises third parties as well, that will serve to ensure neutrality and transparency, 13.The enquiry will be conducted in line with the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2019 and 8/11
the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023, shall abide by the principles of natural justice, and shall be completed within three months..
14.These Writ Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. Needless to say, compliance with the directions in para 10.1 and 10.2 shall be subject to the result of the enquiry as directed above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. [A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 14.10.2025 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ps 9/11
To 1.The Joint Director (Vocational), Directorate of School Education, D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai - 6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District, Thallakulam, Madurai.
3.The District Educational Officer, Melur Educational District, Melur, Madurai District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Theppakkulam Police Station, Madurai.
10/11
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
ps 14.10.2025 11/11