[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
J.Paranjothi Bagath Singh vs The Joint Director Of School Education on 13 March, 2026
W.P.No.32092 of 2013
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.32092 of 2013
and
W.M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2013
J.Paranjothi Bagath Singh
Headmaster
R.B.A.N.C. Higher Secondary School,
No.26, Swami Chetty Street,
Komaleeswaranpet,
Chennai – 600 002. ... Petitioner
vs
1. The Joint Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Secretary/Chairman
Adhoc School Committee,
R.B.A.N.C. Higher Secondary School,
No.26, Swami Chetty Street,
Komaleeswaranpet,
Chennai – 600 002.
3. G.Mary James,
B.T.Assistant (History)
R.B.A.N.C. Higher Secondary School,
No.26, Swami Chetty Street,
Komaleeswaranpet,
Chennai – 600 002. … Respondents
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
W.P.No.32092 of 2013
Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records in connection
with the impugned order of the second respondent in Lr.No.Ch/23/2013-14 dated
21.11.2013 and quash the same and pass orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Samrat
For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari
Government Advocate for R1
: No Appearance for R2
: Mr.G.Thilakavathy
Senior Advocate for
Mr.R.Gopinath for R3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government
Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the third respondent and perused the records.
2. The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed the action of
the second respondent in issuing proceedings in Lr.No.Ch/23/2013-14 dated
21.11.2013 relieving him from the post of Head Master and promoting the third
respondent to the post of Head Master and directing the petitioner to hand over the
charge to the third respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as
B.T.Assistant along with third respondent and another, in the second respondent
School initially on consolidated pay basis on 01.07.2004 and their services were
regularized against the sanctioned post in the second respondent school vide
proceedings dated 09.11.2006 with effect from 01.06.2006; that the committee of
the second respondent by its resolution dated 23.04.2010 appointed him as Head
Master of the second respondent school; and that he was discharging the duties as
Head Master of second respondent school till the impugned order was passed.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the impugned order came to
be passed on change in the committee and the new committee which was appointed
pursuant to the order passed by this Court had motive to send him out of school,
since, he was appointed by the earlier committee.
5. Petitioner further contended that immediately after the new committee
took over the management of the second respondent school, he was issued with
memo dated 05.11.2013, 12.11.2013, 13.11.2013 and three charges memos on
18.11.2013; and that the second respondent without conducting any enquiry and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
without giving him an opportunity had passed the impugned order relieving him
from the post of Head Master.
6. It is also further case of the petitioner that since he was appointed as
Head Master of the second respondent school based on validly constituted
committee in its meeting held on 23.04.2010, the second respondent could not have
issued the impugned proceedings without conducting any enquiry or without
granting him opportunity.
7. Petitioner further contended that on his appointment as Head Master,
the third respondent herein had challenged the said appointment firstly by filing an
appeal and also approached this Court by filing writ petition vide W.P.No.25014 of
2010; and that the second respondent herein, which was also arrayed as second
respondent in the said writ petition, filed a counter affidavit claiming that the
petitioner being a senior most teacher was appointed as Head Master and there is
no illegality or irregularity in his appointment. However, contrary to the assertion
made before this Court and acting on the direction issued by the Joint Director of
School Education vide his letter dated 22.11.2010 to examine the claim of the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
respondent, the second respondent had decided to promote the third respondent to
the post of Head Master and relieved him from the said duties, despite he having
been appointed as Head Master on 28.06.2010, pursuant to the resolution passed by
the interim committee.
8. On behalf of the petitioner, it is also contended that on his
appointment as Head Master of the second respondent school, which had fallen
vacant on 30.04.2010, the second respondent school had sought for approval of his
appointment as Head Master from the first respondent; and that the first respondent
without taking any action thereon kept the matter pending solely on account of the
pendency of the writ petition filed by the third respondent vide W.P.No.25014 of
2010 and thus, the action of the second respondent in relieving the petitioner from
the post of Head Master and promoting the third respondent to the said post and
directing him to hand over the charge is highly illegal and arbitrary.
9. Counter affidavit on behalf of the first respondent is filed.
10. On behalf of the first respondent, it is contended that the interim
committee nominated by this Court had promoted the petitioner as Head Master
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
from 01.05.2010 and subsequently, he was appointed as regular Head Master on
27.10.2010; that aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the second respondent, the
third respondent made an appeal to the first respondent and also filed writ petition
vide W.P.No.25014 of 2010 for mandamus directing the first respondent to
consider the appeal filed by the third respondent and that in the meantime, the
Hon’ble High Court appointed 9 trustees to administrate the Charity Trust of the
second respondent school by framing a scheme; and that in view of the pendency
of writ petition filed by the third respondent before this Court, the first respondent
did not accord approval for the appointment of the petitioner as Head Master.
11. The first respondent by the counter affidavit further contended that
the newly elected office bearers had initiated action against the petitioner for
irregularities and had taken a decision to appoint the third respondent as Head
Master by relieving the petitioner from the post of Head Master and issued the
impugned order dated 21.11.2013; and that the appointment of the third respondent
was also not approved by the first respondent in view of the pendency of the case
before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
12. On behalf of the third respondent, it is contended that though the
third respondent was appointed initially on 12.07.2000 against the sanctioned
vacancy, approval of her appointment was pending with the Government and her
services were regularized on 07.01.2010, after filing of a writ petition before this
Court seeking regularization of her services from the initial date of joining ie.,
12.07.2000; that though the third respondent was appointed as Head Master under
the impugned proceedings, the first respondent did not accord approval for her
appointment; and that as the third respondent had retired from service now, this
Court may take the aforesaid aspect into consideration and also condone the short
fall in meeting prescribed qualifications/experience, if any.
13. Counter affidavit on behalf of the second respondent is filed.
14. The second respondent, by the counter affidavit mainly contended
that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Grade B.T. Assistant on a
consolidated pay of Rs.4,000/- on 01.07.2004; and that he was appointed to the
post of B.T.Assistant in regular scale on 01.06.2006 and was promoted as Head
Master on 01.05.2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
15. The second respondent by the counter affidavit further contended
that the petitioner did not fulfil the required qualifications prescribed under the
Rules to become Head Master and thus, his appointment to the post in 2010 itself
is void ab initio and as such, the petitioner cannot calim any right.
16. The second respondent by the counter affidavit also contended that
even assuming that the petitioner, third respondent and another teacher were
appointed on the same day as B.T Assistant, the third respondent being more aged
than the petitioner, the candidature of the third respondent would have to be
considered as per Rule 4 (c) of State and Subordinate Service Rules by giving
preference over the others.
17. Contending as above, the respondents seek for dismissal of the writ
petition.
18. I have taken note of the respective submissions as urged.
19. The fulcrum of the petitioner’s case is that he was appointed to the
post of Head Master by the interim committee as its meeting held on 28.06.2010;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
that he has been discharging his duties as Head Master since then till the issuance
of the impugned order. Though the petitioner’s claim of having been validly
appointed as Head Master of the second respondent school firstly, proceedings on
the basis of which the petitioner claims himself as having been appointed as Head
Master ie., proceedings of the meeting dated 28.06.2010 show that the appointment
of the petitioner was only in-charge of Head Master and not as a regular Head
Master. Though the second respondent in the counter filed in W.P.No.25014 of
2010 had taken a stand of petitioner being appointed validly and there is no
irregularity, it is to be noted that Rule 15 r/w. Annexure V of Tamil Nadu
Recognized Private School (Regulations), Act 1973, prescribes the qualification
for appointment of Head Master (High School) which are as under:
(i) B.A or B.Sc., or its equivalent and B.Ed., or B.T or L.T and trained
teachers certificate of Collegiate Grade; and
(ii) to have worked as teacher in recognized school for a period of not less
than five years after obtaining B.T or its equivalent degree.
20. If one takes note of the aforesaid requirement prescribed under the
Rules, the petitioner in order to be appointed as Head Master, was required to have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
the qualification of having worked as teacher in a recognized school for a period of
not less than 5 years. The petitioner having joined the service of the second
respondent school though on 01.07.2004, the said service being only as a junior
B.T Assistant and having been regularized as a B.T Assistant only from
01.06.2006, the petitioner did not possess the required qualification of having not
less than 5 years of service when he was appointed to the post of Head Master on
May 2010 or thereafter when the second respondent claimed that his appointment
having been made validily. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had only 3 ½ years
of experience as B.T Assistant when he was appointed to the post of Head Master,
while the Rule prescribed of not having less than 5 years. Thus, the initial
appointment of the petitioner to the post of Head Master itself is invalid and
irregular. It is for the said reason that the said appointment was not approved by
the first respondent.
21. Further, it is also to be noted that the second respondent, by the
proceedings dated 28.06.2010, had appointed the petitioner only as an in-charge
Head Master, which can only be considered as in officiating capacity and not on a
regular basis, for the petitioner to claim that his appointment having been validly
made by the committee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
22. Though the petitioner had claimed that it is on account of change in
the interim committee in 2013, and that the said committee wanted him to exit the
school, for which, he has been issued with multiple memos from 5 th November,
2013 onwards and thereafter having passed the impugned order on 21.11.2013, it is
to be noted that the impression entertained by the petitioner of the impugned order
passed by the second respondent is in furtherance of the various memos issued to
him and thus, the second respondent is required to grant an opportunity of personal
hearing to him, at the outset, the said impression entertained by the petitioner is a
misnomer, as the impugned proceedings does not mention that the said order is in
furtherance of the charge memos issued to him or that the action is being taken
thereunder. Though the impugned order makes a reference to the memo issued to
the petitioner, the same is ony by way of a reference, while the basis of the
impugned order relieving the petitioner from the post of Head Master-in-charge is
on account of other reasons mentioned therein.
23. The main reason stated in the impugned order being the falling
performance of the school during the past 2 to 3 years and also on account of the
other reasons mentioned therein, the claim of the petitioner of having required to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
be granted an opportunity before taking further action on the basis of memo issued
to him does not appeal to this Court for being accepted.
24. It is also to be noted that if only the petitioner was aggrieved by the
order of the second respondent, he ought to have availed the remedy of appeal
provided under Rule 15 (4) (A) of the Rules, 1974. The petitioner, instead of
availing the remedy provided under the Rules, approached this Court straight away
by filing the present writ petition, claiming the action of the said respondent to be
in violation of principles of natural justice. However, as noted herein above, the
appointment of the petitioner is per se illegal and contrary to the Rules and
therefore, the petitioner cannot claim of being required to be granted an
opportunity when the second respondent sought to correct its action.
25. Further, as noted herein above, the appointment of petitioner was only
in-charge Head Master and admittedly was not approved in the time scale of Head
Master by the first respondent. The petitioner, having not taken any steps for
regularization of his service as Head Master at the relevant point of time, cannot
seek to lay claim to the said post, on respondent issuing the impugned proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
26. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the calim of the petitioner
of he having been appointed validly in the year 2010 and being relieved from the
said post by the impugned order of the second respondent does not merit
consideration.
27. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No order as to costs.
13.03.2026
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Internet: Yes/No
dh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
To
1. The Joint Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Secretary/Chairman
Adhoc School Committee,
R.B.A.N.C. Higher Secondary School,
No.26, Swami Chetty Street,
Komaleeswaranpet,
Chennai – 600 002.
3. G.Mary James,
B.T.Assistant (History)
R.B.A.N.C. Higher Secondary School,
No.26, Swami Chetty Street,
Komaleeswaranpet,
Chennai – 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
dh
Pre-delivery order made in
13.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
