[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Mary James vs The Director Of School Education on 13 March, 2026
W.P.No.18515 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 11.03.2026
Pronounced on : 13.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
W.P.No.18515 of 2010
Mary James ... Petitioner
vs
1.The Director of School Education
College Road,
Chennai – 600006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer
Chennai.
3.The District Educational Officer
Chennai East
Chennai – 600 094. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating
to the proceedings of the third respondent in OoMu.No.4646/A2/07 dated
16.05.2008, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise
the service of the petitioner with retrospective effect from the date of her joining
namely 12.07.2000 with all consequential service and monetary benefits.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
W.P.No.18515 of 2010
For Petitioner : M/s.G.Thilakavathy, Sr. Advocate
for Mr.R.Gopinath
For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari, GA
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government
Advocate for respondents and perused the records.
2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as
B.T.(Assistant) on 12.07.2000 in R.B.A.N.C High School, Komaleeswaranpet,
Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “School”) in the place of S.Mahalingam who
had retired on superannuation w.e.f. 01.06.2000; that the aforesaid post is an aided
post by Government of Tamil Nadu.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the school before
undertaking the appointment against the impending vacancy had sought for
permission from the 3rd respondent to fill up the said post vide its letter dated
11.04.2000; that the school after issuing appointment order dated 12.07.2000 to her
had brought her appointment to the notice of the 2nd respondent vide letter dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
11.09.2000 and requested to accord approval at the earliest, and followed up the
same again vide letter dated 07.11.2000.
4. Petitioner also contended that while the approval of her appointment
was pending for approval, since, September 2000, the 2nd respondent vide
proceedings dated 16.05.2008 had accorded approval for her appointment vide
letter dated 09.11.2006 w.e.f. 01.07.2004; that the School had addressed a letter
dated 26.09.2007 to the 3rd respondent for sanction of regular pay scale to her from
the date of her initial appointment on 12.07.2000; that the 3rd respondent by letter
dated 16.05.2008 had rejected the aforesaid request made by the School on the
ground that the petitioner’s appointment made prior to 01.07.2004 was not in
accordance with law and rules and hence was not approved and therefore, the
request of the school for regularisation of her services from the date of her initial
appointment i.e., from 12.07.2000 cannot be considered. Assailing the said
proceedings, the present writ petition is filed.
5. Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
6. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that the appointment of
the petitioner was not as per the roaster register; that as per the roaster register the
post of B.T.(Assistant) is earmarked for OC candidate; that the School
Management without following the roaster register appointed the petitioner who
belongs to MBC category in the vacancy reserved for OC turn; and that the school
management did not obtain prior permission from the 2nd respondent to fill up the
said vacancy.
7. The respondents further contended that since, the appointment of the
petitioner by the School was not in accordance with rules, the Assistant Director of
Employment Exchange by his proceedings dated 19.07.2001 issued directions to
the school to terminate the service of the petitioner forthwith and that the school
management vide letter dated 23.07.2001 had relieved the petitioner from duty.
8. The respondent by the counter affidavit contended that the petitioner
was appointed again in the same school w.e.f. 01.07.2004 as a fresh incumbent
after duly following communal roaster and other criteria; and that her appointment
was regularised by the respondent vide proceedings dated 09.11.2006 only w.e.f.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
01.06.2006 on time scale of pay and the petitioner was on consolidated pay during
the period from 01.07.2004 to 31.05.2006.
9. It is thus contended by the respondents that since, the petitioner was
appointed as fresh incumbent on 01.07.2004, the petitioner cannot seek for
regularisation of her services from 12.07.2000 to 30.06.2004. The respondents
contending as above, have placed on record the letter of the School dated
23.07.2001 as issued to the petitioner relieving her from service of the School.
10. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
11. Though, on behalf of the petitioner it is vehemently contended that
School having sought for according approval for undertaking appointment in the
impending vacancy as early as April 2000 and the respondents having not accorded
approval and for the said reasons, the School having appointed the petitioner in
order to ensure no disturbance is caused to the students, it is to be noted that the
respondents while seeking to fill up the impending vacancy cannot violate the
roaster register by appointing a candidate of their own choice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
12. Further, as the respondents did not accord approval for appointment
of the petitioner against the sanctioned and aided post which had fallen vacant
from 01.06.2000, the school could not have taken a unilateral decision to appoint
the petitioner in violation of the roaster register as per which the said vacancy was
reserved for OC turn candidate.
13. It is also to be noted that the respondents not only did not accord
approval, but had directed the School to terminate the service of the petitioner
immediately; that the school acting on the said direction having issued relieving
order to the petitioner on 23.07.2001; and that the petitioner having received the
said proceedings, cannot claim that she was in continuous service, on being
appointed against the sanctioned vacancy from 12.07.2000 till 30.06.2004.
14. The petitioner had suppressed the fact of being served with the letter
dated 23.07.2001 while approaching this Court by the present writ petition. Not
only the petitioner suppressed the aforesaid fact, but also claimed as if there has
been inaction on the part of the respondents in according approval for her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
appointment, since, September 2000. The aforesaid fact only goes to show that the
petitioner had approached this Court with unclean hands and by resorting to
suppression. It is settled position of law a person / litigant invoking extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
required to make true and complete disclosure and should not resort to suppression
and any act of suppression dis-entitles the party from being granted any relief.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.D.Sharma Vs. SAIL
[(2008) 12 SCC 481] held
34.The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under
Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary.
Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing
substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the
petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean
hands, put forward all the facts before the court without
concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material
facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition
may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits
of the claim.
16. The judgment of K.D.Sharma (cited supra) was followed in ABCD
Vs. Union of India [(2020) 2 SCC 52].
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Digambar [(1995) 4 SCC 683], held that:
19. Power of the High Court to be exercised under
Article 226 of the Constitution, if is discretionary, its exercise
must be judicious and reasonable, admits of no controversy. It is
for that reason, a person-s entitlement for relief from a High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, be it against the
State or anybody else, even if is founded on the allegation of
infringement of his legal right, has to necessarily depend upon
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
unblameworthy conduct of the person seeking relief, and the
court refuses to grant the discretionary relief to such person in
exercise of such power, when he approaches it with unclean
hands or blameworthy conduct.
18. The above judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Digambar (cited
supra) was followed in ITC Ltd., Vs. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., [(2018) 15 SCC 99].
19. As noted above, the petitioner not only resorted to suppression but
also claimed of being in continuous service from 12.07.2000 which claim belied by
the fact of relieving order dated 23.07.2001 received by her.
20. Thus, the claim of the petitioner of she being entitled for
regularisation from the date of her initial joining on 12.07.2000 till 2004 is devoid
of merits and that the impugned order by which the respondents have rejected her
claim for regularisation, in the considered view of this Court does not suffer from
any infirmity.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
21. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-
payable to the credit of Madras High Court Legal Services Authority, Chennai
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13.03.2026
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
tsh
To
1.The Director of School Education
College Road,
Chennai – 600006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer
Chennai.
3.The District Educational Officer
Chennai East
Chennai – 600 094.
4. The Member Secretary,
Madras High Court Legal Services Authority,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
tsh
Pre-delivery order made in
13.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
