Madras High Court
S.Aneesh vs The Director Of School Education on 25 July, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.1399 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 18.07.2025
Pronounced On : 25.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) No.1399 of 2017
and
W.M.P. (MD) Nos.1149 to 1151 of 2017
S.Aneesh
S/o.Sudhakaran Nair,
Jayanivas,
Vallavilai Post,
Kollemcode,
Kanyakumari District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Joint Director of Higher
Secondary Education,
College Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
4. The District Educational Officer,
Kuzhithurai,
Kanyakumari District.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:53 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.1399 of 2017
5. The Secretary,
Sree Devi Girls Higher Secondary School,
Kollemcode Post – 629 160,
Kanyakumari District.
6. Manikandan Nair,
S/o.Prabhakaran Nair,
Kottuvilagathu Veedu,
Panavillai,
Kollemcode Post – 629 160,
Kanyakumari District. ...Respondents
PRAYER:
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, or any other
appropriate writ or order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ,
calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the
fifth respondent in No. Nil, dated 22.12.2016, quash the same and
consequently direct the fifth respondent to appoint the petitioner in the
post of Junior Assistant in the fifth respondent School and pass such
further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
PRAYER IN W.M.P.(MD) No.1149 of 2017:
To dispense with the production of the original impugned order
passed by the fifth respondent in No. Nil dated 22.12.2016 and thus
render justice.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:53 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.1399 of 2017
PRAYER IN W.M.P.(MD) No.1150 of 2017:
To stay the operation of the impugned order passed by the fifth
respondent in No. Nil dated 22.12.2016, pending disposal of the main
Writ Petition and thus render justice.
PRAYER IN W.M.P.(MD) No.1151 of 2017:
To grant an order of direction, directing the fourth respondent not
to approve the proposal of appointment of 6th respondent sent by the 5th
respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and thus render
justice.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Thesigan
For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
Government Advocate for R1 to R4
: Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar
for Mr.Cibi Chakraborthy for R5
: Mr.Thayumanasamy for R6
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The present writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to quash the appointment order dated 22.12.2016 issued by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:53 pm )
5th respondent school appointing the 6th respondent as Junior Assistant,
and consequently direct the said school to appoint the petitioner to the
said post.
3. The 5th respondent is a Government-aided Higher Secondary
School. The vacancy for the post of Junior Assistant arose on 01.08.2015
on account of superannuation. Pursuant to a public advertisement dated
06.05.2015 and 09.06.2015, the petitioner, along with others including the
6th respondent, applied for the post of Junior Assistant. The petitioner
appeared for the interview conducted on 10.10.2015. He claims that he
was shortlisted and later only informed that he was selected. However, to
his surprise, the 6th respondent was appointed instead, despite allegedly
being overaged and not having appeared for the interview.
4. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the 6 th respondent’s
application was initially rejected for overage, and that the petitioner was
overlooked due to his inability to pay a bribe. He relies on the age limit
prescribed in the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1955,
and contends that the appointment of the 6th respondent, aged above 30
years, was illegal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:53 pm )
5. Per contra, the 5th respondent school and the 4th respondent
District Educational Officer have filed detailed counters. It is admitted that
the 6th respondent was appointed by resolution of the School Committee
dated 21.12.2016, and his appointment was later approved by the
competent authority vide proceedings dated 26.09.2018, pursuant to
directions issued in connected writ petitions including W.P.(MD) No.
18448 of 2017.
6. It is the consistent stand of the respondents that the 5th
respondent school is governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private
Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder in 1974.
Annexure V to the Rules prescribes educational qualifications but does
not impose any upper age limit for appointment to the post of Junior
Assistant. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the age limit prescribed
under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 is thus
misplaced, as those rules apply to direct recruitment to posts under the
government, and not to appointments made by private aided schools.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:53 pm )
7. It is also pertinent to note that the 6th respondent’s appointment
has been duly approved by the competent educational authority, subject to
the outcome of earlier Writ Petition (MD)No.18488 of 2017. The
petitioner has not produced any evidence to substantiate the allegation of
bribery or prove mala fides in the selection process.
8. Judicial review of selection and appointment in aided schools is
circumscribed. In the absence of any statutory violation, or clear and
convincing proof of mala fides, this Court will not substitute its views for
that of the appointing authority or interfere with the decision of the School
Committee.
9. The petitioner, having participated in the very same selection
process and being unsuccessful, cannot now challenge the appointment
merely on the basis of assumptions or misapplied legal standards. It is well
settled that an unsuccessful candidate cannot seek writ of mandamus for
appointment as a matter of right.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:53 pm )
10. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity in the selection and
appointment of the 6th respondent. The writ petition is devoid of merit and
stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.07.2025
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
LS
To
1. The Director of School Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Joint Director of Higher
Secondary Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4. The District Educational Officer,
Kuzhithurai,
Kanyakumari District.
5. The Secretary,
Sree Devi Girls Higher Secondary School,
Kollemcode Post – 629 160,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:53 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
LS
6. Manikandan Nair,
S/o.Prabhakaran Nair,
Kottuvilagathu Veedu,
Panavillai,
Kollemcode Post – 629 160,
Kanyakumari District.
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
25.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:53 pm )
