Madras High Court
Dr.Navis Jai Chithra vs The Director Of School Education on 26 August, 2025
W.P.No.10720 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 06.08.2025
Pronounced on 26.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.10720 of 2025
and
W.M.P.No.12072 of 2025
Dr.Navis Jai Chithra ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai,
Chennai – 600 008.
2. The Joint Director (Secondary) & Appellate Authority,
Directorate of School Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 008.
3. The Chairman,
Central Board of Secondary Education,
Shiksha Kendra,
No.2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar,
New Delhi – 110 092.
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
W.P.No.10720 of 2025
4. The School Management Committee,
Rural Institute for Community Education,
Mathakondapalli Model School,
Mathakondapalli – 635 114.
Krishnagiri District.
5. Meru Miller,
The Secretary,
Rural Institute for Community Education (RICE),
Mathakondapalli Model School,
Mathakondapalli – 635 114.
Krishnagiri District.
6. A.Stephenraj Jayakumar,
The Correspondent/Joint Secretary,
Rural Institute for Community Education,
Mathakondapalli Model School,
Mathakondapalli – 635 114.
7. The Chairman,
Rural Institute for Community Education,
Mathakondapalli Model School,
Mathakondapalli – 635 114. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of
the show cause notice dated 29.01.2017 issued against the petitioner by the
sixth respondent & the letter of suspension dated 04.06.2024 issued by the
seventh respondent, and quash the same being violative of the provisions of
CBSE Bye-laws and Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation
Act, 1974, and consequently direct the seventh respondent to reinstate the
petitioner in service and pay all the attending benefits along with all other
attendance and service and monetary benefits of the petitioner.
2/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
W.P.No.10720 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash,
Senior Counsel
for Ms.K.Jayasudha
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru,
Special Government Pleader
(for R1 & R2)
Mr.T.Sri Krishna Bhagawat (for R3)
Mr.P.Wilson,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Kanna (for R4 to R7)
*****
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
show-cause notice dated 29.01.2017 issued by the sixth respondent and the
letter of suspension dated 04.06.2024 issued by the seventh respondent.
2. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash, appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the petitioner had been working in the fifth
respondent school as a Senior Principal since June 2015. Meanwhile, she
was issued an order of suspension on 12.04.2017, and subsequently, a charge
memorandum dated 15.07.2017 was issued to her. Following this, a domestic
enquiry was conducted. Aggrieved with the charge memorandum and
suspension, the petitioner preferred Writ Petitions in W.P.No.22305 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
and W.P.No.12261 of 2020. After the orders were passed in the Writ
Petitions, Writ Appeals are now pending. Meanwhile, the petitioner was
again issued with another show-cause notice dated 29.01.2017 and a
suspension order dated 04.06.2024, which are under challenge in the present
Writ Petition. Though the petitioner has raised various grounds, and to
challenge the above impugned order, given the primary contention raised by
the fifth respondent regarding maintainability, it is appropriate to first decide
on the maintainability before delving into the merits of the matter.
2.1. With regard to the maintainability, it is the specific contention of
the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash that, though the writ petition is
filed against a private school, still the same is maintainable because of the
duty imposed on statute under the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools
(Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Tamil
Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rules'). To substantiate the above submission, they rely
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Federal Bank
Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733. Apart from that, the
learned Senior Counsel would also rely upon the judgements of the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
Supreme Court of India in Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava,
reported in (2020) 14 SCC 449, and Raj Kumar v. Director of Education,
reported in (2016) 6 SCC 541 to support his case that even in respect of
service matters, the Writ petitions are maintainable against the private
unaided educational institutions.
2.3. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that, by
virtue of Section 22(3)(b) of the Act, the suspension shall not be beyond a
period of two months, and if so, approval of the competent authority is
required. Therefore, contended that when the statute mandates certain things
and imposes a duty upon the private school, on its non compliance, a writ
petition will be maintainable. It is the further submission of the learned
Senior Counsel that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.Wilson in St. Mary's
Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, reported in (2023) 4 SCC
498, is not applicable to the case in hand, as the above judgement deals with
office employees of private school, whereas in the instant case, the petitioner
is the Senior Principal qua the teaching staff. Hence, would contend that the
present writ petition is maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
3. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by Mr.
P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth to seventh
respondents, by relying the judgment in St. Mary's Education Society's case
(cited supra). According to him, the above judgment has clearly
distinguished the earlier judgment of Marwari Balika Vidyalaya's case
(cited supra), wherein, it was the Government stand that approval of the
Government is mandatory for appointment and removal. In the present case,
such thing are not come within the purview of any statutory authority.
Therefore, would contend that the present writ petition is not maintainable.
3.1. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel
Mr.P.Wilson that, the contention of the respondents that, the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in St. Mary's Education Society's case
(cited supra) is not applicable to teaching staff, is erroneous, inasmuch as
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in S. Matilal Benedict v. The
Secretary, reported in MANU/TN/7611/2023, has applied the ratio of the
above Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment even against the teaching staff.
Therefore, would contend that a mere reference of office employee in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
penultimate paragraph will in no way affect the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex
Court's judgment Hence, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition on the
ground of maintainability.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
5. As the very maintainability is in question, it is apt to refer to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Andi Mukta Sadguru
Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust
v. V.R. Rudani, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 691, where it was held that judicial
control over the fast-expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the
people, should not be put into a watertight compartment. With this objective
in mind, let us proceed to determine whether the petitioner can maintain the
present writ petition.
6. It is an admitted fact that the fifth respondent educational institution
is an unaided private educational institution. It is further not in dispute that
the petitioner is a teaching faculty and was holding the post of Senior
Principal on the date of the impugned charge memorandum and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
suspension. Against this factual background, let us first consider the ratio of
St. Mary's Education Society's case (cited supra). For a better
understanding, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant
paragraphs, viz., paragraphs 54, 66, and 67, which read as follows:
“54. Thus, the aforesaid order passed by this Court
makes it very clear that in a case of retirement and in case
of termination, no public law element is involved. This
Court has held that a writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution against a private educational institution shall
be maintainable only if a public law element is involved
and if there is no public law element is involved, no writ
lies.
....
66. Merely because a writ petition can be maintained
against the private individuals discharging the public
duties and/or public functions, the same should not be
entertained if the enforcement is sought to be secured
under the realm of a private law. It would not be safe to say
that the moment the private institution is amenable to writ
jurisdiction then every dispute concerning the said private
institution is amenable to writ jurisdiction. It largely
depends upon the nature of the dispute and the enforcement
of the right by an individual against such institution. The
right which purely originates from a private law cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
enforced taking aid of the writ jurisdiction irrespective of
the fact that such institution is discharging the public duties
and/or public functions. The scope of the mandamus is
basically limited to an enforcement of the public duty and,
therefore, it is an ardent duty of the court to find out
whether the nature of the duty comes within the peripheral
of the public duty. There must be a public law element in
any action.
67. Our present judgment would remain incomplete if
we fail to refer to the decision of this Court in Ramakrishna
Mission v. Kago Kunya [Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago
Kunya, (2019) 16 SCC 303]. In the said case this Court
considered all its earlier judgments on the issue. The writ
petition was not found maintainable against the Mission
merely for the reason that it was found running a hospital,
thus discharging public functions/public duty. This Court
considered the issue in reference to the element of public
function which should be akin to the work performed by the
State in its sovereign capacity. This Court took the view that
every public function/public duty would not make a writ
petition to be maintainable against an “authority” or a
“person” referred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India unless the functions are such which are akin to the
functions of the State or are sovereign in nature.”
(emphasis supplied)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
According to the above ratio, a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India against a private educational institution shall be maintainable only if a
public law element is involved. It further held that cases of retirement and
termination do not involve public law elements.
7. After the above discussion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
summed up the final conclusion at paragraph 75, which reads as follows:-
“ 75. We may sum up our final conclusions as under:
75.1. An application under Article 226 of the
Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body
discharging public duties or public functions. The public duty
cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is
otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that
duty or obligation to the public involving the public law
element. Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of public
function, it must be established that the body or the person was
seeking to achieve the same for the collective benefit of the
public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be
accepted by the public.
75.2. Even if it be assumed that an educational
institution is imparting public duty, the act complained of must
have a direct nexus with the discharge of public duty. It is
indisputably a public law action which confers a right upon the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
aggrieved to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 for a prerogative writ. Individual wrongs or
breach of mutual contracts without having any public
element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ
petition under Article 226. Wherever Courts have intervened
in their exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, either the
service conditions were regulated by the statutory provisions
or the employer had the status of “State” within the expansive
definition under Article 12 or it was found that the action
complained of has public law element.
75.3. It must be consequently held that while a body may
be discharging a public function or performing a public duty
and thus its actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a
constitutional court, its employees would not have the right to
invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226
in respect of matter relating to service where they are not
governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. An
educational institution may perform myriad functions
touching various facets of public life and in the societal
sphere. While such of those functions as would fall within the
domain of a “public function” or “public duty” be
undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article
226 of the Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely
within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having
no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In the absence of the service conditions being controlled or
governed by statutory provisions, the matter would remain in
the realm of an ordinary contract of service.
75.4. Even if it be perceived that imparting education by
private unaided school is a public duty within the expanded
expression of the term, an employee of a non-teaching staff
engaged by the school for the purpose of its administration or
internal management is only an agency created by it. It is
immaterial whether “A” or “B” is employed by school to
discharge that duty. In any case, the terms of employment of
contract between a school and non-teaching staff cannot and
should not be construed to be an inseparable part of the
obligation to impart education. This is particularly in respect
to the disciplinary proceedings that may be initiated against a
particular employee. It is only where the removal of an
employee of non-teaching staff is regulated by some statutory
provisions, its violation by the employer in contravention of
law may be interfered with by the Court. But such interference
will be on the ground of breach of law and not on the basis of
interference in discharge of public duty.
75.5. From the pleadings in the original writ petition, it
is apparent that no element of any public law is agitated or
otherwise made out. In other words, the action challenged has
no public element and writ of mandamus cannot be issued as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
the action was essentially of a private character.”
(emphasis supplied)
While looking at the above summation, ordinary contract service, having no
statutory force or backing, cannot come under judicial review.
8. However, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash would contend
that the judgment in St. Mary's Education Society's case (cited supra) deals
with office employees, whereas in the present case, the petitioner is a
teaching staff, therefore, the applicable case law is Marwari Balika
Vidyalaya's case (cited supra). In this connection, it is appropriate to extract
the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of Marwari Balika Vidyalaya's case
(cited supra), which read as follows:-
“1. The main question for consideration in the appeal
is as to maintainability of writ petition as against private
school receiving grant in aid to the extent of dearness
allowance. The appeal has been filed against the judgment
and order dated 30-1-2009 [Asha Srivastava v. State of
W.B., 2009 SCC OnLine Cal 242] passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Calcutta whereby the appeal
filed by Respondent 1 was allowed directing her
reinstatement along with back wages.
....
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
19. Similarly, in Sushmita Basu v. Ballygunge
Siksha Samity [Sushmita Basu v. Ballygunge Siksha
Samity, (2006) 7 SCC 680 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1741] the
appellant was working in a recognised private educational
institution in the State of West Bengal. The schools were
not receiving grants in aid from the government but were
getting dearness allowance component of the approved
teachers working in the school. The issue was with respect
to the applicability of recommendation of the First Pay
Commission and that of Second Pay Commission though
there was no statutory provision or even government order
directing private unaided educational institutions to
implement the recommendations of the Third Pay
Commission, they were implemented by the schools as part
of their agreement with the teachers. Though the
management also implemented the recommendations of the
Third Pay Commission in the sense that the salaries of the
teachers were hiked in terms of the said report, the
institution refused to give retrospective effect to the
enhancement. The institution refused to give effect to the
recommendations of the Third Pay Commission
retrospectively w.e.f. 1-1-1998. Ultimately, this Court
observed in Sushmita Basu [Sushmita Basu v. Ballygunge
Siksha Samity, (2006) 7 SCC 680 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1741]
that the Writ of Mandamus by the Court issued against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
private institutions would be justified only if a public law
element is involved.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. Though in the judgment of Marwari Balika Vidyalaya's case (cited
supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ultimately concluded that the
writ petition of a teaching faculty is maintainable, the peculiar fact that
necessarily needs to be deduced is that the Marwari Balika Vidyalaya school
had received grant-in-aid to the extent of the dearness allowance. Therefore,
though it is a private school, when it receives grant-in-aid to the extent of the
dearness allowance, automatically, government control comes into play.
10. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the submission of the
learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.Wilson. He would invite the attention of this
Court about the paragraph 62 of the judgment of St. Mary's Education
Society's case (cited supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
distinguished the judgment of Marwari Balika Vidyalaya's case (cited
supra), and observed that in the Marwari Balika Vidyalaya's case, the State
Government took a specific stand before the Court that its approval is
required both for the appointment and the removal of a teacher. In this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
regard, it is appropriate to extract paragraph 62 of the judgment of St. Mary's
Education Society's case (cited supra), which reads as follows:-
“62. We may say without any hesitation that
Respondent 1 herein cannot press into service the dictum as
laid down by this Court in Marwari Balika
Vidyalaya [Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava,
(2020) 14 SCC 449 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 854] as the said
case is distinguishable. The most important distinguishing
feature of Marwari Balika Vidyalaya [Marwari Balika
Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava, (2020) 14 SCC 449 : (2021) 1
SCC (L&S) 854] is that in the said case the removal of the
teacher from service was subject to the approval of the State
Government. The State Government took a specific stance
before this Court that its approval was required both for the
appointment as well as removal of the teacher. In the case
on hand, indisputably the Government or any other agency
of the Government has no role to play in the termination of
Respondent 1 herein.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. Apart from that, even in Raj Kumar's case (cited supra), the
specific defence of the Government is that, the Government approval is a
must. Therefore, as long as the Government has authority in the service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
related issues, then as a natural corollary, the writ petition is maintainable. In
the present case, in order to invoke government control, the petitioner would
rely upon Section 22(3)(b) of the Act. For ready reference, the same is
extracted hereunder:-
“22(3)(b) No such suspension shall remain in force
for more than a period of two months from the date of
suspension and if such inquiry is not completed within that
period, such teacher or other person shall, without
prejudice to the inquiry, be deemed to have been restored
as teacher or other employee:
Provided that the competent authority may, for
reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the said period of
two months, for a further period not exceeding two months,
if in the opinion of such competent authority, the inquiry
could not be completed within the said period of two
months for reasons directly attributable to such teacher or
other person.”
By referring to the above Section, the learned Senior Counsel would submit
that the suspension shall not remain in force for more than a period of two
months, and if the suspension continued beyond the period of two months,
then the competent authority has to record the reasons in writing for such
continuation.
12. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
Mr.V.Prakash that, when a statutory duty is vested upon them to give reason
for extending suspension, and when it is not followed, then the writ petition
would lie against the fifth respondent, and to support such contention relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Federal Bank
Ltd.'s case (cited supra).
13. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of St.
Mary's Education Society's case (cited supra), which arose in a case against
an private educational institution, wherein in paragraph 74, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India distinguished the judgment of Federal Bank Ltd.'s
case (cited supra) and held that merely because the State Government has
regulatory power, the same, by itself, would not confer any such status upon
the institution (school) nor put any such obligations upon it which may be
enforced through the issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
14. Accordingly, though the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash
relied upon the judgment of Federal Bank Ltd.'s case (cited supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in St. Mary's Education Society's case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
(cited supra), had ultimately concluded that, the regulatory power by itself
will not confer any such status upon the institution so as to file the writ
petition against them. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to
refer to paragraph 74 of the judgment, which reads as follows:-
“74. In the aforesaid context, we may only say that merely
because the State Government has the regulatory power, the
same, by itself, would not confer any such status upon the
institution (school) nor put any such obligations upon it which
may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution. In this regard, we may refer to and rely upon the
decision of this Court in Federal Bank [Federal Bank
Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733] . While deciding
whether a private bank that is regulated by the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949 discharges any public function, this Court
held thus : (Ramakrishna Mission case [Ramakrishna
Mission v. Kago Kunya, (2019) 16 SCC 303] , SCC pp. 315-16,
paras 33-35)
“33. …‘33. …‘in our view, a private company carrying on
banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed
as an institution or a company carrying on any statutory
or public duty. A private body or a person may be
amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become
necessary to compel such body or association to enforce
any statutory obligations or such obligations of public
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
nature casting positive obligation upon it. We do not find
such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a private
company carrying on a commercial activity of
banking. Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such
activity carried on by private bodies work within a
discipline, do not confer any such status upon the
company nor put any such obligation upon it which may
be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of
the Constitution. Present is a case of disciplinary action
being taken against its employee by the appellant Bank.
The respondent's service with the Bank stands terminated.
The action of the Bank was challenged by the respondent
by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The respondent is not trying to
enforce any statutory duty on the part of the Bank.’
(Federal Bank case [Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas,
(2003) 10 SCC 733] , SCC pp. 758-59, para 33)
34. Thus, contracts of a purely private nature would not
be subject to writ jurisdiction merely by reason of the fact
that they are structured by statutory provisions. The only
exception to this principle arises in a situation where
the contract of service is governed or regulated by a
statutory provision. Hence, for instance, in K.K.
Saksena [K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on
Irrigation & Drainage, (2015) 4 SCC 670 : (2015) 2 SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
(Civ) 654 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 119] this Court held that
when an employee is a workman governed by the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it constitutes an exception
to the general principle that a contract of personal service
is not capable of being specifically enforced or performed.
35. It is of relevance to note that the Act was enacted to
provide for the regulation and registration of clinical
establishments with a view to prescribe minimum
standards of facilities and services. The Act, inter alia,
stipulates conditions to be satisfied by clinical
establishments for registration. However, the Act does not
govern contracts of service entered into by the hospital
with respect to its employees. These fall within the ambit
of purely private contracts, against which writ
jurisdiction cannot lie. The sanctity of this distinction
must be preserved.”
(emphasis in original and supplied)
(emphasis supplied by this Court)
15. In the above background let use go into the factual position, this is
case filed by the Senior Principal of the fifth respondent school against the
fifth respondent, which is the private educational institution, and such
educational institution admittedly has not received any grant-in-aid from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
Government. Furthermore as per the Rule 15, condition of service of the
teacher is based on an agreement as provided in Form VII-A of the Rule.
Therefore, I am of the firm view that the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Marwari Balika Vidyalaya's case (cited supra) and Raj
Kumar's case (cited supra) are not applicable to the present facts of this
case, and this case squarely comes within the ratio of the judgment of St.
Mary's Education Society's case (cited supra). We must also keep in mind
with the appellate remedy available to the petitioner by virtue of Sections 23
and 41 of the Act, which also a ground to hold that the writ is not
maintainable in the place of equally efficacious alternative remedy.
16. Though a feeble attempt was made by the learned Senior Counsel
Mr.V.Prakash that the judgment of St. Mary's Education Society's case
(cited supra) relates only to office employees, as already submitted, the said
judgment was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in S. Matilal
Benedict's case (cited supra) in favour of teaching staff. Further, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that even though private entity is performing a public
duty, unless the act alleged has a nexus with the public duty, the question of
maintaining the writ petition does not arise. In the present case, the act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
challenged has no nexus with the public duty of the fifth respondent. Here,
the act complained of is petitioner's service related issued, which squarely
falls beyond the public duty undertaken by the fifth respondent. Therefore,
this Court is of the firm view that the present writ petition is not
maintainable.
17. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
26.08.2025
kv
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order /Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1. The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai,
Chennai – 600 008.
2. The Joint Director (Secondary) & Appellate Authority,
Directorate of School Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
3. The Chairman,
Central Board of Secondary Education,
Shiksha Kendra,
No.2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar,
New Delhi – 110 092.
4. The School Management Committee,
Rural Institute for Community Education,
Mathakondapalli Model School,
Mathakondapalli – 635 114.
Krishnagiri District.
5. The Secretary,
Rural Institute for Community Education (RICE),
Mathakondapalli Model School,
Mathakondapalli – 635 114.
Krishnagiri District.
6. The Correspondent/Joint Secretary,
Rural Institute for Community Education,
Mathakondapalli Model School,
Mathakondapalli – 635 114.
7. The Chairman,
Rural Institute for Community Education,
Mathakondapalli Model School,
Mathakondapalli – 635 114.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kv
Pre-Delivery Order in
26.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 04:50:32 pm )
