Madras High Court
T.Gangatharanpillai vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2025
Author: S. M. Subramaniam
Bench: S. M. Subramaniam
W.A.No.386 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
Writ Appeal No.386 of 2024
T.Gangatharanpillai ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanniyakumari District.
4. The District Educational Officer,
Kulithurai,
Kanniyakumari District. ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act,
against the order dated 21.07.2022 in W.P.No.2342 of 2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:03:34 pm )
1/6
W.A.No.386 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr. J. Jayamalan
For R1 to R4 : Mr. R. Neethi Perumal,
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The appellant has not approached the writ Court and the writ
Appellate Court with clean hands.
2. The relief sought for in the writ petition is to set aside the rejection
order dated 14.06.2016 and to direct the State of Tamil Nadu to pass
appropriate orders for granting salary in favour of the petitioner school by
considering the fact that the petitioner school was started on 01.06.1989 by
extending the benefits of G. O. Ms. No.50, Education, Science and
Technology (D1) Department, dated 20.01.1995.
3. Admittedly, even as per the appellant, the school was recognized
by the Government of Tamil Nadu, with effect from 01.07.1991. The
recognition granted from the year 1991 remains unchallenged. The claim is
made with reference to the Government Order issued in G. O. Ms. No. 50.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:03:34 pm )
4. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that
G.O.Ms.No.50 was issued only in respect of the schools enclosed in
Annexures I, II and III to the Government order.
5. Interestingly, the writ petitioner has not enclosed the Annexures
along with the Government Order issued in G. O. Ms. No. 50, both before
the Writ Court and before this Court. When this Court asked the learned
Government Advocate to produce annexures, he would able to produce one
annexure, but other two annexures are not produced. However, the learned
counsel for the appellant would submit that the name of the petitioner’s
school is not found in the annexures. Even without enclosing the annexures
to the Government Order, the appellant is seeking extension of the said
benefit and to award grant from the year 1989.
6. The Government Order is based on a decision taken by the
Government to permit assessment of salary grant for the post for few
schools under the administrative control to an unaided school in the
Annexures I, II and III, since the said schools were opened upgraded
unaided schools during the year 1988-89 and 1989-90. But the petitioner’s
school was recognized from the year 1991 and therefore they are not
eligible to avail the benefit( Uploaded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis underon:the Government
06/03/2025 01:03:34 pm Order
) which is a special
Government Order passed with reference to few schools as per the
Annexures.
7. The case of the petitioner cannot be compared with those schools
found in the annexures. By seeking extension of the government order, the
petitioner has made an attempt to open Pandora box wherein, many such
schools may come out and approach the Court for seeking grant with
retrospective effect, which would result in huge financial loss to the State's
Exchequer.
8. The writ petition itself has been filed after a lapse of more than 34
years from the date of grant of recognition. Thus, the claim is vexatious.
The writ petitioner has not enclosed the annexures willingly even before
this Court when the writ appeal has been filed, despite the fact that the
annexures have been spoken about by the writ Court.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(S.M.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
27.02.2025
ssi
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:03:34 pm )
To:
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanniyakumari District.
4. The District Educational Officer,
Kulithurai,
Kanniyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:03:34 pm )
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM., J.
AND
K. RAJASEKAR., J.
ssi
27.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:03:34 pm )
