Madras High Court
Pope Memorial Higher Secondary School vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 September, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.25009 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 01.08.2025
Pronounced On : 11.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) No.25009 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.22669 of 2018
Pope Memorial Higher Secondary School
Sawyerpuram - 628 251
Thoothukudh District
Represented by its
Correspondent
P. Jeferson Samuelraj. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary to Government
School Education Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Director of School Education
College Road
Chennai-6.
3. The Joint Director of School Education
Vocational Education
DPI Campus
Chennai – 6.
4. The Chief Educational Officer
Thoothukudi. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 07:18:40 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.25009 of 2018
PRAYER in W.P.:
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, or any other order or
orders in the nature of writ calling for the records pertaining to the order
passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings in Na. Ka. No.
3071/A3/2018 dated 05.07.2018 and quash the same and consequent
direction may be issued to the respondents to permit the petitioner school
to continue the vocational group of General Machinist by admitting
students and appointing eligible teachers with grant in aid and pass any
other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper as to
the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.
PRAYER in WMP:
To stay the operation and all the further proceedings of the order
passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.
3071/A3/2018 dated 05.07.2018 pending disposal of the writ petition and
thus render justice.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr. T.A.Ebenezer, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The Petitioner is a private higher secondary school established
by the CSI, Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese. In the present writ petition,
the petitioner school challenges the order issued by the 4th Respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 07:18:40 pm )
By the impugned order, the school was informed that the communication
of the Joint Director of School Education (Vocational), dated
09.03.2009, had already been circulated to all schools. It was further
stated that, with effect from the academic year 2007–2008, no new
teachers for the vocational stream should be appointed. If such
appointments were necessary, they should be made only through the
Parent Teachers Association. The order also directed that where the
enrolment of students is below fifteen, they must be admitted to nearby
schools, and under no circumstances should fresh admissions be made.
The schools were categorically instructed that they shall not act contrary
to the Government’s order.
3. The writ petition was admitted on 19.12.2018. Upon issuance of
notice, the 4th Respondent filed a counter affidavit. In paragraphs 2
and 3, the Respondent has averred as follows:—
“2.It is submitted that the petitioner school is a
minority school, established prior to independence, is
having Vocational Group namely machinist. The Instructor
posted for this Group retired on the Afternoon of
31-05-2018.
3.It is also submitted that the School authorities has
applied for the opening of the Vocational Group, General
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 07:18:40 pm )
Machinist. But the Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi,
the 4th Respondent of this case rejected the approval for the
opening of the General Machinist Group in the petitioner
school in his proceedings R.C.No. 3071/A3/2018 dated
05-07-2018 under the following Grounds in proceedings
R.C.No 35980/V1/E1/2007 dated 19-11-2010 based on the
G.O.Ms.No 8 School Education Department 06-01-2009 and
G.O.Ms No 9 School Education Department 06-01-2009
a)The proceeding of the Joint Director (Vocational
Education) Chennai has stated that no Teacher for the
Vocational Group has been appointed through PTA
b) No students were admitted during the school year
2011-2012.
c) No students were admitted to these Vocational
Group without prior permission of the competent authority.
d) The Vocational groups has not been banned and
also the appointment of Teaches in schools through PTA
and it liable for taking severe action.
These instruction were circulated among schools in
R.C.No. 1109/A3/2009 Dated 09-03-2009.
Therefore, that the rejection in R.C.No 3071/A3-2018
dated 05-07-2018 of the Chief Educational Officer,
Thoothukudi is in order and does not requires quashed.”
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the
respondents, also drew the attention of this Court to a detailed judgment
of a Division Bench, in which I was part of the Bench, rendered in W.A.
(MD) No. 532 of 2019 and the connected batch cases, dated 09.06.2025.
In the operative portion of the said judgment, as contained in paragraphs
15 to 18, the Bench had ordered as follows:—
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 07:18:40 pm )
“15.This Court is of the considered view that any
change in the policy decision by the Government regarding
Vocational courses should not affect the service conditions of
the existing Vocational Teachers, who were appointed prior to
the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE)
Department, dated 06.01.2009. Service conditions cannot be
altered to the disadvantage of employees who are all already
in service. This being the basic principles of service
jurisprudence, the Government policy in G.O.Ms.No.9,
School Education (VE) Department, dated 06.01.2009 will
have a prospective effect and cannot be implemented
retrospectively so as to affect the services of existing
Vocational Instructors. Therefore, the services of the
Vocational Instructors appointed prior to the issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE) Department, dated
06.01.2009 and whose appointments have been approved by
the Department are protected. They are entitled to all the
benefits as per the Service Rules. Regarding pending
proposals for approval of appointments, date of appointment,
post sanctioned, eligibility and other criteria as per Rules are
to be taken into consideration.
16.As far as the Vocational Teachers appointed after
G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE) Department, dated
06.01.2009, their services are not protected. In fact, these
Vocational Teachers were appointed in the vacancies that
arose on account of the retirement, death or resignation of the
Vocational Instructors, who were in service. Thus, their
appointments cannot be protected since the post of Vocational
Instructors came to be abolished from the date on which
G.O.Ms.No.9 was issued ie., on 06.01.2009. If any such
appointments were made, it must be with the prior permission
of the Government. If such permission was granted by the
Education Department, then those cases can be protected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 07:18:40 pm )
However, all other appointments made to the post of
Vocational Instructors after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.9, School
Education (VE) Department, dated 06.01.2009, are not
protected and the Government is not obligated to approve
these appointments and grant aid.
17.In respect of individual cases falling within the
ambit of the principles considered by this Court in the
aforementioned paragraphs, those individuals if they are
otherwise eligible and falling within the eligible category,
then they are at liberty to approach the authorities. In all other
cases where appointments are made to the Vocational
Instructors post after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.9, School
Education (VE) Department, dated 06.01.2009, approval of
appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
18.It is made clear that if those Vocational Instructors
appointed prior to G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE)
Department, dated 06.01.2009 are qualified, appointed in the
sanctioned post and eligible as per Rules, their proposals are
to be considered in accordance with Act and Rules.”
5. The Petitioner School cannot contend anything beyond what has
already been laid down in the aforesaid order. Consequently, no case has
been made out, and the writ petition stands dismissed. The W.M.P. is
closed. No costs.
Index: Yes / No 11.09.2025
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ay/LS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 07:18:40 pm )
Copy to:
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary to Government
School Education Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Director of School Education
College Road
Chennai-6.
3. The Joint Director of School Education
Vocational Education
DPI Campus
Chennai – 6.
4. The Chief Educational Officer
Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 07:18:40 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
LS
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
11.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 07:18:40 pm )
