Madras High Court
The Secretary vs G.Chitradevi on 30 April, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A(MD)No.1171 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.04.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.1171 of 2025
The Secretary,
TUNSV Higher Secondary School, Tiruchuli,
Virudhunagar District. ... Appellant
vs.
1. G.Chitradevi
2. The Director of School Education,
Chennai-6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, against the order dated 06.06.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.11889 of
2024.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar
For R1 : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
For R2 & R3 : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
Page No.1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
W.A(MD)No.1171 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 06.06.2024
made in W.P(MD)No.11889 of 2024.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as
follows:
The 1st respondent/writ petitioner is working as B.T. Assistant in
the appellant school. Since the 1st respondent was found to be surplus,
by order dated 30.05.2024 of the appellant, she was deployed to SBK
Higher Secondary School, Kalloorani, from the appellant school.
Challenging the said order, the 1st respondent filed the above writ
petition contending that despite there are vacancies in the post of P.G
Assistant in the appellant school, without considering her for promotion
to the said post, the appellant resorted to deployment. The Writ Court,
finding that similarly placed excess B.T Assistant Teachers have already
been considered and promoted in the existing P.G Assistant posts,
disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the appellant to consider
the 1st respondent for promotion in the existing vacancies and pass
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
orders within a period of two months. Against the said order, the
appellant school has filed this appeal.
3. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the
appellant would contend that earlier when the 1st respondent was
deployed by order dated 28.04.2017, she challenged the said order by
filing W.P(MD)No.9585 of 2017. Though initially an order of interim
stay was granted, later the said writ petition was dismissed in the year
2022 and the 1st respondent had not filed any appeal against the said
order. Pursuant to the said order, when the appellant again passed a
deployment order dated 12.06.2023, the 1st respondent challenged the
same in W.P(MD)No.14447 of 2023 suppressing the dismissal of her
earlier writ petition. When the appellant filed counter in the second writ
petition, the 1st respondent withdrew the said writ petition and
accordingly it was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.08.2023. Again, by the
present impugned order, the 1st respondent successfully stalled the
deployment order passed by the appellant on the third time. Even
pursuant to the impugned order, when the appellant called the 1st
respondent to appear for written examination and interview for
promotion, she again challenged the same and obtained interim stay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
Thus, the learned counsel would state that the 1st respondent, who is in
the habit of suppressing the material facts before this Court, is not
entitled to any equity from this Court. Hence, the order impugned is
liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would
state that under the garb of complying with the order impugned in this
appeal, the appellant had directed the 1st respondent to appear for a
written test and interview for promotion to the post of P.G Assistant
(Chemistry). The 1st respondent is a qualified candidate working in the
appellant school and therefore conducting written examination for
promoting her is unknown to the Tamil Naadu Recognised Private
Schools (Regulations) Act. Therefore, challenging the said action of the
appellant, the 1st respondent filed W.P(MD)No.22639 of 2024 and this
Court finding that the 1st respondent has made out a prima facie case, has
granted interim stay by order dated 23.09.2024. Thus, the learned
counsel would state that the action of the appellant in conducting
written examination for promoting their own teacher is arbitrary.
Hence, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
5. Heard both sides.
6. Though the 1st respondent was found to be surplus, the fact
remains that there are vacancies in P.G Assistant posts, wherein,
similarly placed excess B.T teachers were considered and promoted.
However, the 1st respondent has been singled out. Even after the
impugned order passed by this Court, the appellant have chosen to
conduct written examination for promoting the 1st respondent, which
shows the mala fide intention on the part of the appellant in any way to
deny promotion to the 1st respondent. Such action has been rightly
stayed by this Court.
7. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall
pass order promoting the 1st respondent as P.G Assistant within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No
costs.
[J.N.B, J.] [S.S.Y, J.]
30.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
bala
To
1. The Director of School Education,
Chennai-6.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Virudhunagar District.
JUDGMENT MADE IN
DATED : 30.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
