[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Director Of School Education vs S.L.Angel Niruba ...1St on 17 March, 2026
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.A(MD)No.368 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A(MD)No.368 of 2026
and
C.M.P(MD)No.3367 of 2026
1.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Marthandam,
Kanyakumari District. ... Appellants/Respondents 1 to 3
vs.
1.S.L.Angel Niruba ...1st Respondent/petitioner
2.The Correspondent,
Abraham Memorial Higher Secondary School,
Maruthancode-629 163,
Kanyakumari District. ... 2nd Respondent/4th Respondent
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
W.A(MD)No.368 of 2026
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order dated 10.02.2025 made in W.P(MD)No.2979 of 2025.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
For R1 : Mr.K.Ragadheesh Kumar
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
For R2 : Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
The present Writ Appeal has been filed by the respondents 1 to 3 in the writ
petition, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the
impugned order of the second respondent dated 04.11.2024 was quashed and the
matter was remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Lab Assistant in the fourth
respondent School on 03.06.2019. A proposal seeking approval for the said
appointment was submitted to the second respondent. However, the same was
rejected by the second respondent through the impugned order on the ground that
the appointment had been made without adhering to the Rules and Regulations
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
and that prior permission had not been obtained as mandated under Rule 15(4)(c)
of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974.
3. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the judgment of the
Division Bench in W.A. No.900 of 2007 dated 30.04.2008 in the case of R.
Kuttiswamy vs. Joint Director of School Education and others, held that the
applicability of Rule 15 is confined to teaching staff and cannot be extended to
non-teaching staff such as a Watchman. A similar view has also been taken by
another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.4011 of 2019. The First Bench
of this Court has further held that prior permission is not required even in respect
of non-teaching staff. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“6. We have considered the submissions raised and we find
that the provisions of Rule 15(4) of the 1974 Rules, does not specify
the applicability of the Rule of prior permission in relation to the
appointment of a non-teaching staff of an Aided High or Higher
Secondary School. In the instant case, the issue is about the
appointemtn of a Lab Assistant, which is admittedly a non-teaching
post. We, therefore, find that in the absence of any such specific
intention in the Rule, to apply the same for seeking a prior
permission to appoint a non-teaching staff would be contrary to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
ratio of the judgment in the case of R.Kuttiswamy (supra) as relied
on byt he respondent that is squarely applicable. We see no reason to
differ from the view taken therein in relation to appointments against
non-teaching posts that have been made prior to the issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.101 dated 18.05.2018. The judgment in the case of The
Director of Elementary Education and others Vs. P.Manikandan
and another (Supra) was in relation to the appointment of a teacher
and not a non-teaching staff. The ratio thereof is, therefore,
distinguishable and not applicable in the present case. Accordingly,
no prior permission was required in the present case for appointing
the respondent/writ petitioner as a Lab Assistant.”
4. We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be
dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. The second respondent
is directed to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders. There shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]
17.03.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
am
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 17.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
