Madras High Court
The Director Of School Education vs V.Selvam ... 1St on 5 June, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 W.A.(MD)NO.131 OF 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.(MD)No.131 of 2023 AND
C.M.P.(MD)No.1749 of 2023
1. The Director of School Education,
School Education Department,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Education Department,
Theni. ... Appellants/Respondents 1&2
Vs.
1. V.Selvam ... 1st Respondent/Writ petitioner
2. The Secretary,
Sri Varadha Venkataramana Higher Secondary School,
Venkatachalapuram,
Theni Taluk,
Theni District. ... 2nd Respondent / 3rd Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to
set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.16596 of 2021 dated
18.08.2022.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:46 pm )
2 W.A.(MD)NO.131 OF 2023
For Appellants : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader.
For R-2 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
***
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated
18.08.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.16596 of 2021 filed by the first
respondent herein (V.Selvam).
3. V.Selvam was appointed as B.T.Assistant(Maths) in Sri
Varadha Venkataramana Higher Secondary School, Theni Taluk in the
year 1995. Disciplinary action was initiated against him by the school
management on 06.09.2016. An enquiry officer was appointed and
enquiry was conducted. The delinquent was found guilty. The
management applied to the Department under Section 22 of the
Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973
seeking approval for dismissing the delinquent. Unfortunately,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:46 pm )
without even waiting for the approval from the competent authority,
dismissal order came to be issued on 05.07.2019. Challenging the
same, Selvam filed an appeal before the Chief Educational Officer,
Theni. The appeal was allowed and the dismissal order was set aside
on 14.07.2020. But the school management did not comply with the
order passed by the Department. Hence, Selvam filed W.P.(MD)
No.16596 of 2021 for implementing the order of the Chief
Educational Officer, Theni. The writ petition was allowed on
18.08.2022 in the following terms:-
“4. The learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that
Section 22(1) of the Act mandates prior permission
of the Authorities before an order of dismissal of a
teacher is passed and hence, the proposal for post
approval of the dismissal order has been rightly
rejected.
5. A perusal of the proceeding of the second
respondent dated 19.01.2017, reveals that the
School Committee had in fact, sent a letter on
28.11.2016, seeking for prior permission for
dismissing the petitioner herein from services. It is
their case that the approval petition has not been
acted upon, till date. When the Authorities had not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:46 pm )
passed orders on the third respondent's
application, seeking for prior permission for
dismissing the petitioner, the school committee has
no authority to dismiss such a Teacher, on the
ground that the proposal is pending before the
Authorities. A mere pendency of the applications,
seeking for prior permission, will not justify the
dismissal order and hence, I do not intend to
interfere with the subsequent orders passed by the
Authorities, rejecting the third respondent's
proposal for approval of the dismissal order.
Consequently, the petitioner herein will be entitled
for reinstatement into service, since the order of
dismissal has been found to be illegal and invalid.
6. Nevertheless, since the third respondent
claims that his prior approval, seeking for dismissal
of the petitioner from the services, is still pending
before the second respondent herein, it will be
appropriate to direct them to pass orders on the
same, within a stipulated time. At this juncture, it is
brought to the notice of this Court that the school is
at present under the Direct Management of the
Educational Authorities.
7. In the light of the above findings, there
shall be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2
herein to forthwith pass orders, reinstating the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:46 pm )
petitioner back into service with effect from
05.07.2019, together with all service and monetary
benefits, including the arrears of salary. The second
respondent herein shall pass appropriate orders on
the proposal sent by the third respondent herein
dated 28.11.2016, within a period of three (3)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.”
Challenging the same, the Department has filed this writ appeal.
4. The Department is aggrieved by the fact that the learned
single Judge had cast the entire financial liability to pay arrears on
the Department. The learned Special Government Pleader reiterated
all the contentions set out in the grounds of appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner / first
respondent herein submitted that the writ petitioner would be
content and happy, provided that the arrears are settled. He is not
bothered about the source from which the settlement comes.
6. The learned counsel for the school management submitted
that the school management had submitted a proper proposal and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:46 pm )
they had also sent reminders to the department. It was utterly
inactive and different. According to the learned counsel, the
department cannot take advantage of its own wrong.
7. It is true that that the Department ought to have
expeditiously disposed of the proposal. Section 22 of the Act
specifically mandates that without prior approval of the competent
authority, an order of dismissal cannot be passed. The school
management clearly acted in breach of the statutory mandate. Having
contravened the statutory mandate, the school management cannot
now blame the Department. We modify the order of the learned
single Judge. The liability to pay arrears will fall only on the school
management and the Department is relieved of the said liability. It is
also submitted that subsequently the proposal was also rejected. The
rejection order has been put to challenge in W.P.(MD)No.12724 of
2023. It is needless to say that the said writ petition has to be dealt
with on its own merits and the outcome of this writ appeal will not
have any bearing on the said writ petition. The school management
shall settle the salary arrears payable to the petitioner within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:46 pm )
8. With the aforesaid observations, this writ appeal is partly
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (K.RAJASEKAR, J.)
5th June 2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:46 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
PMU
05.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:46 pm )
