[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
R.Mekala vs The Director Of School Education on 18 February, 2026
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.A(md)No.41 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 10.02.2026
Pronounced on : 18.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WA(MD)No.41 of 2026
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.508 and 509 of 2026
R.Mekala Appellant/
Writ Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai-6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The District Educational Officer(Secondary)
Sivakasi,
Virudhunagar District.
4.The Secretary,
T.N.P.M.Marimuthu Nadar Higher Secondary School,
Thalavaipuram-626 188,
Rajapalayam Taluk,
Virudhunagar District. Respondents/
Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 07:49:26 pm )
W.A(md)No.41 of 2026
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to
prefer this Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order of this
Court dated 09.01.2026 in WP(MD). No.9729 of 2025.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran
For R1 to R3 : Mr.J.Ashok, AGP,
For R4 : Mr.V.Panneerselvam
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.)
This intra Court appeal is directed against the order passed by the
learned single Judge in W.P(MD)No.9729 of 2025 dated 09.01.2026.
2.The appellant/writ petitioner is a Teacher working as B.T assistant
Tamil in T.N.P.M. Marimuthu Nadar Higher Secondary School,
Thalavaipuram. She has been in service since 1989. Initially, she was
appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher and later on completing B.Lit.
(Tamil), M.A(Tamil) and B.Ed., Tamil, she was promoted as B.T Assistant
Tamil in the same School. Having in possession of P.G degree, she is
qualified /promoted to the post of P.G Assistant Tamil. When the incumbent
retired on superannuation on 31.05.2023, a vacancy arose in the said School
to fill up the post of P.G Assistant Tamil. The appellant, being fully qualified
and eligible for the said post, had sought for a promotion as per the existing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 07:49:26 pm )
Service Rules. When any vacancy arises for the post of Teacher, the
management has to first fill it up from the surplus Teacher available for
deployment and if there is no surplus Teacher available, then the
management has to promote any of the eligible and qualified working
candidates in the school and as a last option, if there is no candidate available
under the above two or more, then the management can resort to fill up the
vacancy by way of direct recruitment. As far as the case of the
T.N.P.M.Marimuthu Nadar Higher Secondary School, in which, the
appellant/writ petitioner is serving, three in-house candidates are qualified
and eligible for promotion, since two of them relinquished, the only
candidate fully qualified and eligible was the appellant/writ petitioner. To
deprive her right of getting promotion, the management has sought for
promotion to fill up the vacancy by direct recruitment. With that intention,
notification calling application for direct recruitment to the post of P.G
Assistant Tamil has been published. Challenging the said impugned
notification dated 26.03.2023 published in Thinathanthi News Paper Tamil,
the writ petition has been filed.
3.The management had contested the writ petition stating that the
Committee was constituted by the School Management to assess the
suitability of in-house candidate, since other two Teachers who were also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 07:49:26 pm )
eligible and relinquished their right of promotion. The appellant/writ
petitioner was called for assessment of her merit and ability by the Expert
Committee. When the appellant/writ petitioner was asked to take class to the
10th Std., students on a particular topic, the Committee members who also
present while the appellant/writ petitioner took class for the student, found
that she is not fit for promotion. The report of the Expert Committee was
accepted by the School Management and only thereafter, the impugned
notification was issued after getting necessary permission from the
authorities concerned. They received 5 sponsored candidates from the
employment exchange and still more have applied based on the notification.
Stating that there is no illegality in the process of selecting candidate to fill
the post of P.G Assistant in their institute, sought for dismissal of the writ
appeal.
4.The Government also in support of the management had contended
that even if the candidate is qualified and eligible for being promoted, merit
and ability is the criteria for promoting an in-house person. Besides the
seniority, since the management has found the appellant/writ petitioner lacks
merit and ability, as a matter of right, she cannot seek for promotion on the
ground that she is the only eligible in-house candidate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 07:49:26 pm )
5.The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival submissions,
held that for promotion to the post of P.G Assistant Tamil, only if the
candidate satisfies the merit and ability criteria in the assessment of the
management, she will be entitled for the promotional post and in the view of
the management, if she fails to fulfil the criteria of the merit and ability, she
cannot, as a matter of right, claim promotion. Since she has been found not
fulfilling the criteria of merit and ability, after evaluating her while taking a
session for the students, she has been found lack of merit and ability in the
promotional post. Therefore, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ
petition stating that no material has been placed on record with regard to the
infirmity or arbitrariness in the assessment made by the Expert Committee.
6.The appellant, in her appeal, has specifically contended that Rule
28(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 2023,
postulate the method of recruitment for teaching staff. The Rule clearly states
that if any teaching post falls vacant in the aided school, then it has to be
filled up by way of deployment of the Teacher from the other aided School
and if no candidate is available in the category of deployment, then it has to
be filled up by way of promotion. Only if no candidate eligible for the post
is available, the management can go for direct recruitment by advertisement,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 07:49:26 pm )
after getting prior permission from the competent authority under Section
35(2) of the said Act. In this case, when the appellant/writ petitioner
possesses necessary qualification and eligibility, her candidature cannot be
ignored on the ground that she has not fulfilled the criteria of merit and
eligibility.
7.In the course of argument, the learned counsel appearing for the
management submitted that the Expert Committee, for assessing the merit
and ability of the appellant/writ petitioner, asked her to take a class of
'Nattrinai' to the 11th Std., students, but her performance was not up to the
expected standard. Hence, the Expert Committee recommended for rejecting
her candidature. On the basis of the recommendation of the Export
Committee, the management thought it fit to fill the post by the third method,
ie., direct recruitment, after getting permission from the competent authority.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant repeatedly
submitted that the appellant has been in service of the fourth respondent
School since 1989 and she had been continuously taking class for students as
B.T Assistant ever since she was promoted as B.T Assistant Tamil. Since
there is a vacancy in the post of P.G Assistant, she had been asked to take
class for them for 11th and 12th Std., by the management as a subject gap
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 07:49:26 pm )
arrangement and she has been continuously discharging her duty with the
satisfaction of the management, but for some extraneous consideration, her
candidature was rejected citing that she lacks merit and ability to handle 11 th
and 12th Std. He further submitted that the appellant had demonstrated her
merit and ability, when she was asked to take class of “Nattrinai”(ew;wpiz).
However, the management with an ulterior intention, had rejected her
candidature.
9.This Court found force in the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant. When we posed a question to the learned
counsel appearing for the management, how the merit and ability of the
candidate was assessed by the Expert Committee during the interaction of the
candidate with the students, the learned counsel immediately responded that
the entire process has been video-graphed and took time to produce the video
clipping.
10.A pen-drive containing video clipping was produced before us and
we saw the video clipping which runs 22 minutes. We find that the
appellant/writ petitioner had properly explained for about 15 minutes to the
students about the topic 'Nattrinai' (ew;wpiz), as well as the verse which is
part of 11th Std., General Tamil syllabus of 8 members of Expert Committee,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 07:49:26 pm )
who were present in the class room, one of them had interacted with the
students and another had interacted with the candidate viz., the appellant/writ
petitioner and they have supplemented some more information about the
topic.
11.We do not find anything to hold that the appellant/writ petitioner
fails to satisfy the criteria of merit and ability. In fact, we found that she had
introduced the topic to the students not as a monologue, but in a interactive
mode with the students and after that, she has explained the verse and again
she had involved the students with interaction and concluded her session.
Few areas, which she has not touched upon, were highlighted by the
Committee members during their interaction. It does not mean that she lacks
merit and ability to take class. As a Teacher, she has adopted the traditional
Black Board Method as well as the Modern Interaction Method to explain
the Tamil Literature of the Sangam period within a short period of 15
minutes. What perhaps could have disturbed the Committee, the prelude she
had given before going to the topic. She in fact recorded her frustration for
testing her merit and ability.
12.We are aware that the Court cannot substitute the decision or
wisdom of the Expert Committee. But in this case, to assess the merit and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 07:49:26 pm )
ability of a Teacher, who had already put upto nearly 30 years of service, the
8 Expert Committee members were present in the class and they have
attempted to amplify one or two omission in the topic to conclude that the
appellant lacks merit and ability. After seeing the video clipping, we firmly
believe that their opinion about the candidate is tainted with malice and a fit
case to interfere.
13.With the above observation, this Writ Appeal stands allowed. No
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.]
18.02.2026
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
Ns
To
1.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai-6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The District Educational Officer(Secondary)
Sivakasi,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 07:49:26 pm )
DR.G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Ns
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.508 and 509 of 2026
18.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 07:49:26 pm )
