Madras High Court
M.Chandran vs The Chief Educational Officer on 14 October, 2025
Author: A. D. Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D. Jagadish Chandira
W.P.No. 27602 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 14.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA
W.P.No. 27602 of 2025
&
W.M.P.No. 30920 of 2025
M.Chandran ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Kanchipuram.
2.The Secretary / Correspondent
WT Masilamani Mudaliar Higher Secondary School,
Walajabad - 631 605. ...Respondents
Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
2nd respondent - the Secretary / Correspondent, W.T. Masilamani
Mudaliar Higher Secondary School, Walajabad, Kanchipuram District,
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 04:59:44 pm )
W.P.No. 27602 of 2025
proceedings Na.Ka.No.33/2025 dated 08.07.2025 rejecting the
petitioner's request of re-employment / extension of service till the
academic year i.e., 31.05.2026 quash the same and direct the 2nd
respondent to permit the petitioner to continue till the end of the
academic year i.e. 31.05.2026.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Giridharan
For Respondent 1: Mrs. Mythreye Chandru
Special Government Pleader
(Education)
For Respondent 2: Mr. G.Sankaran
Senior Counseling
For Mr. S.Bharathi Rajan.
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed for the relief of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent - the Secretary
/ Correspondent, W.T. Masilamani Mudaliar Higher Secondary School,
Walajabad, Kanchipuram District, in proceedings Na.Ka.No.33/2025
dated 08.07.2025 rejecting the petitioner's request of re-employment /
extension of service till the academic year i.e., 31.05.2026, quash the
same and direct the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to continue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 04:59:44 pm )
till the end of the academic year i.e. 31.05.2026.
2. The petitioner is working as a Post Graduate Teacher
(Economics) in the 2nd respondent school, which is a recognised private
school as defined under Section 2 (7) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised
Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1974. The school is receiving aid
from the Government.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is about to be
superannuated on 31.08.2025; as per GO.Ms.No.115, Education
Department, dated 28.06.2022, if his conduct and character are
satisfactory and if he is physically fit to continue in service, the
petitioner has a right of extension of service / re-employment till the
end of the academic year; while so, the petitioner had sent a request
seeking re-employment till the end of academic year; however, the 2nd
respondent has passed the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.33/2025 dated
08.07.2025, rejecting the request of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 04:59:44 pm )
4. Challenging the impugned rejection order, the petitioner is
before this Court.
5. Mr. S.Giridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner has satisfied the conditions required under
GO.Ms.No.115 dated 28.06.2022, i.e., the conduct and character of the
teacher should be good and he should be physically fit to attend school.
He would submit that the purpose of re-employment is to ensure that
there is no interruption in the curriculum of the students.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit
that if at all the Management is not inclined to accept the request,
rejection can be made only if the petitioner's conduct or character is not
good and he is not physically fit for employment. He would contend
that as on date, the post is vacant and no other teacher has been
appointed till date and the school is utilising the service of the
Headmaster. He would submit that due to non-extension of service of
the petitioner and non-appointment of any other teacher, the students
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 04:59:44 pm )
are put to great difficulty. Therefore, he would seek to set aside the
impugned order. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for
the petitioner would rely upon the Judgment of this Court reported in
(2008) 1 MLJ 312 – Correspondent, Secretary and Managing
Trustee, Salem Vs., M.Rajagopalan and others.
7. The respondents have filed their counter and made their
respective submissions.
8. Mrs. S.Mythreye Chandru, learned Special Government
Pleader (Education), appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that
re-employment is not a matter of right. Further, the management has
not sent a request seeking re-employment of the petitioner and in such
circumstances, the 1st respondent cannot pay salary to the petitioner.
9. Mr. G.Sankaran, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the 2nd
respondent would submit that, the petitioner cannot claim re-
employment as a matter of right. He would further submit that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 04:59:44 pm )
petitioner has filed cases against the management. Therefore, since the
situation was not conducive to have the petitioner in the 2nd respondent
school, they have rejected the request. In support of his submission, he
would rely upon the Judgement dated 16.03.2021 of a Division Bench
of this Court in WA.(MD).Nos.107 of 2020 etc., batch.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, would submit
that the aforesaid case relied on by the learned Senior Counsel, will not
be applicable to the case of the petitioner, since it was regarding re-
employment of surplus teachers wherein this Court held that the
Government cannot be made to pay salary for the surplus teachers and
rejected the claim therein, stating that re-employment is not a matter of
right.
11. Heard the learned counsel and perused the records.
12. The petitioner was to be superannuated on 31.08.2025 and he
had sent a representation to the 2nd respondent on 02.06.2025 seeking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 04:59:44 pm )
re-employment. Since there was no response, the petitioner had sent a
representation to the 1st respondent on 27.06.2025.
13. Admittedly, on the date of request, there was no disciplinary
proceedings pending against the petitioner and the petitioner has also
not suffered any punishment. There was nothing to show that the
petitioner's character and conduct were not good and that he was not fit
to continue the work. However, the 2nd respondent has rejected the
request of the petitioner stating that the petitioner has filed cases
against them.
14. This Court, in the Judgement reported in (2008) 1 MLJ 312 –
Correspondent, Secretary and Managing Trustee, Salem Vs.,
M.Rajagopalan and others, has observed as follows:
“2.The right to continue on re-employment till the
end of academic year conferred on the teachers working in
the Schools either Government or private, both minority or
non-minority, has already been upheld by a Division
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 04:59:44 pm )
Bench of this Court in WA.No.1179 of 1993 – S.Sundaram
Vs. Secretary, CSI Diocese of Madras, and the SLP
preferred against the same was also dismissed. The ratio
laid down by the Supreme Court has been consecutively
followed by this Court in R.Muthukrishnan Vs. Secretary,
Aided Middle School, Korranattu Karupur, Kumbakonam
and the District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tanjavur, vide 1998 WLR 77.
3.1.In S.Sundaram Vs. Secretary, CSI Diocese of
Madras (supra), where the teacher was not permitted to
avail the benefit of re-employment after his
superannuation, the Division Bench directed the
management and authorities to pay monetary benefits in
terms of salary payable to him till the end of the academic
year.
3.2.The only contention made on behalf of the
appellant / Management is that the first respondent had
not even made request for re-employment after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 04:59:44 pm )
superannuation and therefore, he cannot make any
complaint against the appellant / Management. But
similar contention was rejected by the Division Bench in
the S.Sundaram v. Secretary CSI Diocese of Madras
(supra), whereunder it is held as follows:
“..... We must point out here that as per the
Government Order, there is no question of any teacher
asking for continuation. The Government Order
specifically states that the institutions are to continue them
till the end of academic year, provided the teacher satisfies
the three conditions laid down in the Government Order,
GO.Ms.No.452, dated 24.03.1970, which has been
followed in subsequent Government Orders.”
3.3.In the above cases, where the teacher was not
permitted to avail the benefits of re-employment after
superannuation, the Division Bench further held as
hereunder:
“.....It is brought to our notice that in some of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 04:59:44 pm )
cases, the teachers have worked for a certain period and
thereafter, they are not continued. Therefore, we direct
that the Management shall pay the salary to all the
teachers in question from the date of superannuation of
each of the teachers till the end of that academic year in
which they attained the age of superannuation, less the
salary, if any, already paid for any part of the period. The
State Government shall also sanction the salary bills
prepared as directed above, and forwarded by the
schools.”
4.The decision of the Division Bench rendered in the
S.Sundaram v. Secretary, CSI Diocese of Madras (supra),
squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
5.We are therefore of the considered opinion that
unless the teacher is found unfit medically or on account of
his or her conduct, he/she is entitled to continue till the
end of the academic year.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 04:59:44 pm )
15. Insofar as the Judgment relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel for the 2nd respondent, the teachers referred to therein were
surplus teachers and the said case will not be applicable to the facts of
the present case.
16. Admittedly, no teacher has been appointed in the 2nd
respondent school to take classes in Economics, which puts the
students in great hardship and the 2nd respondent has also rejected the
petitioner's request. This would go to show that only owing to the
egoistic attitude of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was denied re-
employment. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
17. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the
respondents are directed to re-employ the petitioner in the 2nd
respondent school, till the end of the academic year. The respondents
shall comply with the guidelines made in GO.No.261, School
Education Department, dated 20.12.2018 and ensure that the salary of
the petitioner is paid till the end of the academic year 2025 – 2026.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 04:59:44 pm )
The respondents shall also ensure that the petitioner is given all other
emoluments, till the end of the academic year 2025 – 2026.
18. With the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is
disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed. No costs.
14.10.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kan
Note: Issue order copy by 17.10.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 04:59:44 pm )
To
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Kanchipuram.
2.The Secretary / Correspondent
WT Masilamani Mudaliar Higher Secondary School,
Walajabad - 631 605.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 04:59:44 pm )
A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
kan
14.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 04:59:44 pm )
