[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Director Of Elementary Education vs R.Moorthirajan (Retired) ...1St on 18 March, 2026
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.A(MD)No.372 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A(MD)No.372 of 2026
and
C.M.P(MD)No.3377 of 2026
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
O/o.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai-6.
2.The Joint Director of Elementary Education,
O/o.The Joint Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai-6.
3.The District Educational Officer (Elementary)
O/o.The District Elementary Education Office,
Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.
4.The Block Educational Officer,
O/o.The Block Educational Office,
Rajapalayam,
Virudhunagar District. ... Appellants/Respondents 1 to 4
vs.
1.R.Moorthirajan (Retired) ...1st Respondent/Writ petitioner
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
W.A(MD)No.372 of 2026
2.The Secretary
Nadar Primary School,
Zamin Kollankondan,
Rajapalayam Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Head Master,
Nadar Primary School,
Zamin Kollankondan,
Rajapalayam Taluk,
Virudhunagar District. ...Respondents 2 & 3/
Respondents 5 & 6
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order dated 26.11.2025 made in W.P(MD)No.24575 of 2025.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ
petition, respondents 1 to 4 therein have filed the present writ appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
2. The writ petition was filed assailing the impugned proceedings of the
third respondent in Na.Ka.No.1023/A4/2025 dated Ni.04.2025 and the
consequential proceedings of the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.433/A4/2025
dated 15.05.2025.
3. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on
23.01.1991 in the sixth respondent school, an aided non-minority institution and
his appointment was duly approved from the date of initial appointment. During
his service, he was placed under suspension for the periods from 02.11.2001 and
31.01.2002 and 08.10.2002 to 08.12.2002, on account of which his annual
increments were withheld. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on
30.11.2022 and was paid all terminal benefits. However, he was not granted the
benefits of annual increments, Selection Grade, Special Grade and fincentive
increments.
4. Subsequently, the sixth respondent fowarded a proposal seeking sanction
of the said benefits, which came to be approved on 21.02.2025. Accordingly, the
petitioner was conferred Selection Grade in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teach
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
with effect from 07.02.2001 and Special Grade with effect from 10.02.2011. The
petitioner further claimed entitlement to an additional increment upon completion
of 30 years of service on 09.02.2021. Though he had been placed under
suspension, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. It is his
specific case that he had never relinquished his promotional opportunities at any
point of time.
5. The appellants contended that the juniors of the writ petitioner had been
promoted as B.T. Assistants and subsequently as Headmasters, adn therefore, it
must be presumed that the petitioner had relinquished his right to promotion.
However, the learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the counter affidavit,
held that such presumption is untenable and contrary to the provisions governing
promotion under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the Rules,
wherein promotion is based on merit and ability and not solely on seniority and
accordingly allowed the writ petition.
6. Assailing the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
7. The only contention raised by the learned Additional Government
Pleader that the school authorities has not produced any document to show the
petitioner relinquished his promotional post. Only after seeing the documents
whether the petitioner relinquished or not, the benefits could be given.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner
submitted that in the absence of any disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner,
having completed the requisite years of service, is entitled to Selection Grade and
other consequential benefits. It is an admitted position that the service records of
the petitioner, which are in the custody of the appellants, do not disclose any
relinquishment of promotion at any point of time. The reasoning in the impugned
order that the petitioner must have relinquished promotion merely because his
juniors were promoted as Headmasters on 01.06.1995 is wholly unsustainable. At
the relevant time, the petitioner had not completed the requisite qualification for
appointment as Headmaster, and therefore, no such presumption can be drawn.
9. In the absence of any disciplinary proceedings and in view of the
petitioner having completed 30 years of service, we find no merit in the writ
appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
10. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. The petitioner is entitled
to all consequential benefits. No costs. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]
18.03.2026
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 : 18.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
