N.Pownraj v. State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN W.A.(MD)No.3082 of 2025 & C.M.P(MD)Nos.17923 & 17925 of 2025 N.Pownraj .. Appellant Vs.

1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Secretariat, Chennai -09.

2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai 06.

3. The Joint Director (Higher Education), Department of School Education, College Road, Chennai -06.

4. The Chief Education Officer, O/o The Chief Education Officer, Virudhunagar District.

5. The District Education Officer (Secondary), O/o The District Education Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

6. The Secretary, Nadar High Secondary School, Zamin Kollamkondan, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

... Respondents 1/8

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order in W.P(MD)No.22967 of 2025 dated 25.08.2025 on the file of this Court and allow the Writ Appeal. For Appellant : Mr.T.Thirumurugan For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R5 J U D G E M E N T (Judgement of the Court was delivered by C.KUMARAPPAN, J.) The present writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.08.2025, by and in which, the petitioner's request for re-appointment to the post of Headmaster was denied.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant / petitioner would submit that in light of the Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.115, School and Education Department, dated 28.06.2022, the Teachers who are retiring in the middle of the academic year are entitled to continue till the completion of the academic year. Though the appellant retired as a Headmaster on superannuation on 30.06.2025, he was not considered for re-appointment 2/8

until the completion of the academic year. He would further submit that the authority concerned without considering the true intent of the said Government Order has rejected the appellant's contention, which was also upheld by the learned single Judge without taking into consideration of the correct legal position. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal.

4. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R5 and he would contend that the Government Order G.O.(Ms)No.115, School and Education Department, dated 28.06.2022, should be construed in the interest of the students, and that re-appointment of a retired person is not a matter of right. He would further submit that in the case in hand, the appellant's performance as Headmaster was abysmal and that his continuance would in no way further the academic prospects of the students. Apart from that, he would invite the attention of this Court to the appointment of one Arul Xavier in the place of the appellant with effect from 21.07.2025. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ appeal. 3/8

5. We have given our anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the question of re-appointment provided in Government Order G.O.(Ms)No.115, School and Education Department, dated 28.06.2022 should be understood in the perspective of the students interest and the retired person has no locus standi to seek re-appointment as a matter of right.

7. In the case in hand, on proper application of mind, the authorities have rejected the request. Though they have assigned various reasons, one among them is material and relevant to mention herein. The same is while the petitioner was serving as Headmaster in the sixth respondent school, since 2006 the students strength has been reducing from year-onyear. Further the performance of the students from 10th standard to 12th standard was also not up to the mark. In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to depict the scanned image of the proceedings of the Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District and the same is as follows: 4/8

5/8

8. The above proceedings is self explanatory. Therefore, any reappointment would go counter to the interest of the students. As a matter of fact, that the Headmaster post has now been filled up by the appointing authority, by appointing one Mr.Arul Xavier. Accordingly, this Court absolutely does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6/8

9. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. [A.S.M.,J.] & [C.K., J.] 07.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes mbi To

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Secretariat, Chennai -09.

2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai 06.

3. The Joint Director (Higher Education), Department of School Education, College Road, Chennai -06.

4. The Chief Education Officer, O/o The Chief Education Officer, Virudhunagar District.

5. The District Education Officer (Secondary), O/o The District Education Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

7/8

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

mbi 07.11.2025 8/8