Madras High Court

C.Sundharadhas vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 18 September, 2025

                                                                                        W.P.(MD) No.6914 of 2017

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             Reserved On           : 30.07.2025

                                           Pronounced On : 18.09.2025

                                                          CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

                                             W.P. (MD) No.6914 of 2017

                     C.Sundharadhas,
                     S/o.Y.Chellakkan,
                     5/42, Pandarakkadu,
                     Villukuri Post,
                     Kanyakumari District.                                  ... Petitioner
                                                Vs.

                     1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
                     rep. by its Secretary,
                     School Education Department,
                     Fort St. George,
                     Chennai – 600 009.

                     2.The Director of School Education,
                     College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

                     3. The Chief Educational Officer,
                     Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

                     4.The District Educational Officer (incharge),
                     Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

                     5.The Correspondent,
                     Scott Christian Higher Secondary School,
                     Nagercoil,
                     Kanyakumari District.                                     ... Respondents



                     1/12


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:55 pm )
                                                                                              W.P.(MD) No.6914 of 2017




                     PRAYER:
                                   To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other
                     appropriate writ or order in the nature of writ calling for the records of
                     the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.109359/D1/E3/2016 dated nil 09.2016
                     and the 4th respondent, Education Department in Na.Ka.No.43/A2/2016
                     dated 07.11.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to
                     sanction and pay B.T. Assistant History salary from 11.10.2001 to
                     01.06.2005 with all other benefits to the petitioner in terms of the
                     recommendation of then 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.8970/A2/2011 dated
                     03.01.2012 and pass such further or other orders and thus render justice.


                     APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
                                  For Petitioner        : Mr.C.Godwin, Advocate

                                  For Respondents       : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
                                                          Government Advocate for R1 to R4

                                                       : Mr.L.Jeen Felix, Advocate
                                                         for Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Advocate for R5


                                                          JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. At the time of filing the writ petition, the Petitioner was already

56 years old. By now, he would have reached the age of 64 and would

have been out of service. Nevertheless, he has been pursuing litigation

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:55 pm )

for nearly two decades, seeking approval of his appointment by the

authorities.

3. The present writ petition was admitted by this Court on

17.04.2017, and thereafter, on 27.03.2019, the following interim order

was passed:—

“3. As an interim measure, the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to pay salary to the petitioner for the post of B.T.Assistant History, from 11.10.2001 to 01.06.2005, in terms of the recommendation of the fourth respondent, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

4. The Respondent State preferred a Writ Appeal in W.A. (MD)

No. 231 of 2020. The said writ appeal was allowed by a Division Bench

by order dated 09.07.2020, wherein it was directed as follows:—

“10.As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader that without quashing the impugned order, the prayer for payment of salary in terms of the recommendations made by the fourth respondent cannot be granted. However, in the impugned order there is a positive direction to comply with the portion of the relief sought for by the writ petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order of interim direction, in the light of the above facts and circumstances, is unsustainable and therefore, the impugned order warrants interference.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:55 pm )

11.In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.03.2019 is set aside.”

5. When the writ petition was taken up for further hearing on

05.02.2025, the following order was passed:—

“The official respondents are directed to provide some more particulars regarding the vacancy and appointment of the petitioner in both schools, ie., LMS Higher Secondary School for Boys and Scott Christian Higher Secondary School”

6. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to set aside the order of

the Director of School Education (R2), dated Nil, September 2016, and

that of the 4th Respondent dated 07.11.2016. Upon quashing the same, the

Petitioner further prays for a direction to Respondents 1 to 4 to sanction

and disburse B.T. Assistant (History) salary for the period from

11.10.2001 to 01.06.2005, together with all consequential benefits, based

on the recommendation made by the 4th Respondent.

7. Admittedly, the Petitioner was employed in the 5th Respondent

Higher Secondary School, which is a minority institution. The matter has

a chequered history as stated hereunder.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:55 pm )

8. In W.P. No. 38058 of 2004, by order dated 31.03.2008, this

Court issued the following direction:—

“4. In view of the order passed by this court stated supra and the petitioner is also similarly placed and appointed in the sanctioned vacancy the respondents 1 to 5 are directed to sanction and pay B.T.Assistant, History salary of the petitioner from 02.06.1997 to 07.06.1998 and from 1.2.2000 onwards with all other benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

9. When the Petitioner filed a Contempt Petition alleging violation

of this Court’s order dated 31.03.2008, this Court did not impose any

punishment on the Respondents. On the contrary, it recorded the

subsequent developments, and in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Contempt

Order dated 08.04.2011, it was observed as follows:—

3.When the matter came up on 18.03.2010, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to get instructions. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, has filed a counter affidavit dated 20.10.2010. In para 6 of the counter affidavit, it is averred as follows:-

“6.Based on the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras dated 31.3.2008, the Director of School Education vide his proceedings R.C.No. 1273/D/S5/2005 dated 25.02.2009 has sanctioned 01 B.T.Assistant (History) Post to LMS Boys Higher Secondary School, Marthandam, Kuzhithurai Education District for the period of 02.05.1997 to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:55 pm )

07.06.08 and 01.02.2000 to 10.10.2001 and the pay with other benefits were paid to the petitioner by the District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai. The payment of Rs.222216/- is disbursed on 19.5.09 and Rs.98328/- is disbursed on 10.7.09 to the petitioner by District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that she has to verify whether the amount paid was commensurate with the actual amount due to the petitioner. However, the contempt need not be pending on this score. Since the subsequent compliance of the order of this Court, the contempt petition stands dismissed. If there is any further amount due to the petitioner, it is always open to the petitioner to make representation to the respondents.”

10. Pursuant to the directions issued in the aforesaid two matters,

the 4th Respondent passed an order dated 03.01.2012. Thereafter, the

Petitioner once again filed W.P. No. 28437 of 2014, dated 31.10.2014,

seeking approval of his appointment with effect from 11.10.2001 to

01.06.2005 and for payment of salary. The said writ petition was

disposed of with the following direction:—

“4.Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, a direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to consider and to pass appropriate orders on the recommendation of the respondent No.4 dated 3.1.2012 and also on the representations of the petitioner dated 12.5.2012, 30.8.2012 on merits and in accordance with law, 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: 18/09/2025 03:36:55 pm )

11. Pursuant to the directions issued and under the threat of

Contempt Petition No. 2159 of 2011, the 4th Respondent–DEO passed

the impugned order dated 07.11.2016, which reads as follows:—

“vdnt. ePjpkd;w mtkjpg;g[ tHf;if jtpu;fF ; k; bghUl;lhft[k; nkw;go upl;kD vz;/28437-2014?y; 31/10/2014 ehisa jPu;gg; hizapid Kot[f;F bfhz;L tu nkw;go Mrpupau; ehfu;nfhtpy;. !;fhl; fpwp!;jt nky;epiyg;gs;spf;F khWjy; bgw;W cgup gzpaplj;jpy; gzpnaw;w ehshd 11/10/2001 Kjy; 01/06/2005 tiu bjhlu;e;J Cjpak; bgw;W tH';Ftjw;F gzpaplk; ,y;yhj epiyapy; tHf;fpid KotpwF ; bfhz;L tUk; nehf;Fld; ehfu;nfhtpy; !;fhl; fpwp!;jt nky;epiyg;gs;spf;F mDkjpf;fg;gl;l (mwptpay;) gzpaplk; (tuyhW) gzpaplkhf khw;wp Miz tH';fp 02/06/2005 Kjy; Cjpa gyd;fs; bjhlu;e;J mDkjpf;fg;gl;lJ/

rp/v!;/I/ Tl;L nkyhsupd; eput ; hfj;jhy; ehfu;nfhtpy; !;fhl; fpwp!;jt nky;epiyg;gs;spapy; cgupahf cs;s gzpkhw;wk; bra;ag;gl;l gzpaplj;jpy; khWjy; tH';fpa 11/10/2001 Kjy; 01/06/2005 Koa bjhlu;e;J gzpaplk; epuz ; ak; ,y;yhj gzpaplj;jpy; epu;thfj;jhy; gzpahsu;fis gzp epakdk; bra;jikf;F gs;sp epu;thfnk gzgyd;fs; mspj;jpl ntz;Lk; vdt[k; bjuptpj;J gs;spf;fy;tp ,af;Feufj;jhy; Miz tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt cgupahd gzpaplj;jpy; epu;thfj;jhy; epakdk; bra;Js;sjhy; nkw;go fhy';fSf;F epu;thfnk Cjpak; tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;w tptuk; ePjpkd;w mtkjpg;g[ tHf;F jtpu;jJ ; gs;spf;fy;tp ,af;Feupd; mwpt[iug;go Miz tH';fg;gLfpwJ/”

12. The Petitioner has once again approached this Court. Upon

notice from this Court, the 4th Respondent filed a counter affidavit dated

13.09.2017, wherein in paragraphs 6 to 8, it was stated as follows:—

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:55 pm )

“6. I submit that in the meantime, the petitioner was transferred to the 5th respondent school by the CSI Management of Kanyakumari Diocese for the reason that one post of B.T.Assistant (History) was vacant with effect from 11.10.2001 in the above said school and till now the petitioner is working in the said school, But however the above said post of B.T.Assistant (History) in which the petitioner was appointed at the 5th respondent school was also vacant with effect from 11.10.2001 to 01.06.2005 and as a result as per the letter of this respondent in Na.Ka.No.6709/A4/2003 dated 15.06.2014, the above said post was surrendered to the government. Since, once again the petitioner was appointed in a surplus post of B.T.Assistant (History) with effect from 11.10.2001 at the 5th respondent school, this respondent is not in a position to approve the said appointment.

7. I submit that however, since a post of B.T.Assistant (Science) was declared as surplus, this respondent vide the proceeding in Na.Ka.No.6709/A4/2003 dated 15.06.2004 has converted the above said post into B.T.Assistant (History) and accordingly the petitioner is getting the normal salary with effect from 02.06.2005. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that though she had worked at the 5th respondent school with effect from 11.10.2001 to 01.06.2005, he was not given salary for the above said period. Regarding this issue, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28437/2014 before the Principal Bench of this Hon’ble Court and thereby directing to approve his appointment from 11.10.2001 to 01.06.2005 and the Hon’ble Court has directed the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders of the representation of the petitioner dated 12.06.2012 and 30.08.2012.

8. I submit that since the petitioner had worked in the surplus post of B.T.Assistant (History) at the 5th respondent school from 11.10.2001 to 01.06.2005, it is upto the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:55 pm )

management of the said school is liable to pay salary for the petitioner thereby allowing him to serve in an unsanctioned post. In addition to that since the surplus post of B.T.Assistant (Science) was converted into B.T.Assistant (History) with effect from 02.06.2005, these respondents are liable to pay the salary and other benefits to the petitioner from such date alone. The petitioner could not ask as a matter of right that he should be given salary and other benefit from 11.10.2001 to 01.06.2005 for the reason that he had worked in an unsanctioned post and the state is not under legal obligation to pay the regular salary for the above said period under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Hence, the 2nd respondent vide his impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.109359/D1/E3/2016 dated Nil.09.2016 and the 4th respondent, Education Department in Na.Ka.No.43/A2/2016 dated 07.11.2016 has rightly rejected the petitioner’s claim for salary for the period from 11.10.2001 to 01.06.2005 while working at the 6th respondent school in the surplus post of B.T.Assistant (History) and there is no illegality or infirmity of the impugned orders above.”

13. There is no illegality in the order passed by the 4th

Respondent. If any confusion has arisen, it is attributable to the 5th

Respondent, a private aided minority school. While Article 30(1) of the

Constitution confers on minorities the right to establish and administer

educational institutions of their choice, such right does not extend to

maladministration. In matters of appointment, they are bound by the rules

and regulations framed by the Government for the purpose of granting

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:55 pm )

aid, and the Government is not obliged to release grants in respect of

unapproved posts.

14. In the present case, the Petitioner has been left to fend for

himself, having already filed four writ petitions and two contempt

petitions, while in one instance the State was compelled to file a writ

appeal to set aside an interim order. Throughout these proceedings, the

5th Respondent–School has remained a mere spectator and has not come

forward with a proper affidavit disclosing the true particulars of the

appointment, nor has the so-called corporate management, which

facilitates the shuffling of teachers, furnished the necessary details.

15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its judgment in Anandi Mukta

Sadguru Shree Mukta Jeevanandaswamy Suvarna Jaya v. V.R.

Rudani, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 691, held as follows:—

“We are only concerned with the liability of the management of the college towards the employees. Under the relationship of master and servant, the management is primarily responsible to pay salary and other benefits to the employees. The management cannot say that unless and until the State compensates, it will not make full payment to the staff. We cannot accept such a contention”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:55 pm )

16. Therefore, if there exists any liability to make payment for

availing the services of the teacher, notwithstanding the fact that the post

was not approved, such liability rests with the management to disburse

the salary. The Petitioner, who has no locus standi in the matter of grant,

cannot insist upon the Government to release payment. Hence, no case

has been made out, and the writ petition stands dismissed.

18.09.2025

Index: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes / No LS/ay

Copy to: