Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

A. Leema Pushpam, Vs Thiru. Kabeer — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

Home
Madras HC
2025
A. Leema Pushpam, Vs Thiru. KabeerA. Leema Pushpam, v. Thiru. Kabeer

Dismissed¶28

A. Leema Pushpam, v. Thiru. Kabeer

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 11 – non-compliance with writ direction to approve appointment

Madras HC10 Sept 2025CONT P/2997/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court contempt petition dismissed; Section 11 Contempt of Courts Act 1971; wilful disobedience of order dated 05.02.2024 in W.P.No.23800 of 2022; approval of appointment of V.Anthoniammal Selvarani as B.T. Assistant (Maths) w.e.f. 09.06.2017; teacher ceased working from 21.06.2023 per District Educational Officer inspection dated 03.01.2025; monetary benefits till resignation claimed but refused; no salary payable when teacher not in post; Chief Educational Officer Salem; Jayarani Girls Higher Secondary School; no contempt made out.

What did the court decide?

Since the concerned teacher was not working in the school, there is no question of approval of her appointment, and as such she is not entitled for any salary from the respondent. ¶27

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent, Chief Educational Officer, Salem District, was guilty of deliberate and wilful disobedience of this Court's order dated 05.02.2024 in W.P.No.23800 of 2022 so as to warrant punishment under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. +1 more

Court's answer

No contempt is made out against the respondent and the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Since the concerned teacher was not working in the school, there is no question of approval of her appointment, and as such she is not entitled for any salary from the respondent.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 11 – non-compliance with writ direction to approve appointment – Cont.P.No.2997 of 2024 (Madras HC, G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J., 10.09.2025). The petitioner, Correspondent and Headmistress of Jayarani Girls Higher Secondary School, sought punishment of the Chief Educational Officer, Salem for wilful disobedience of the order dated 05.02.2024 in W.P.No.23800 of 2022 directing approval of the appointment of V.Anthoniammal Selvarani as B.T. Assistant (Maths) with effect from 09.06.2017. Per the respondent's counter, a District Educational Officer's inspection on 03.01.2025 showed the teacher had not worked in the school from 21.06.2023. Held: when the teacher is not working in the school, there is no question of approving her appointment and she is not entitled to any salary from the respondent; hence no contempt is made out and the petition stands dismissed.

A

Cont.P.No.2997 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Cont.P.No.2997 of 2024

A.Leema Pushpam Correspondent and Headmistress, Jayarani Girls Higher Secondary School, Nethimedu, Salem District – 636 0002. ... Petitioner

Vs.

Kabeer, Chief Educational Officer, District Collectorate Compound, Salem District – 636 001.

... Respondent

Prayer:- Contempt petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying to punish the respondent, the Chief Educational Officer, Salem District herein for their delibrate and wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 05.02.2024 in W.P.No.23800 of 2022 under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts, 1971.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mutharasu

For Respondent : Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari Government Advocate

Page 1 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.No.2997 of 2024

ORDER

This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondent

for non compliance of the order dated 05.02.2024, passed by this Court in W.P.No.23800 of 2022, thereby directing the respondent to approve the proposal sent by the petitioner for the appointment of one V.Anthoniammal Selvarani as B.T. Assistant (Maths) in the petitioner's school with effect from her appointment i.e., on 09.06.2017 forthwith.

The respondent filed counter and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that on 03.01.2025, the District Educational Officer made inspection on the petitioner's school. On inspection, it is found that the said V.Anthoniammal Selvarani was not working in the petitioner's school with effect from 21.06.2023. Further the petitioner did not even whisper anything in the contempt petition as well as the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition. Even at the time of passing order by this Court, the said V.Anthoniammal Selvarani was not working as teacher in the petitioner's school.

However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

Page 2 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.No.2997 of 2024

submitted that the said V.Anthoniammal Selvarani is entitled for the monetary benefits from the date of her initial appointment viz., 09.06.2017 till her resignation.

When the concerned teacher is not working in the school, there

is no question of approval of her appointment and as such she is not entitled for any salary from the respondent. Hence, no contempt is made out as against the respondent and this petition is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed.

10.09.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order

rts

Page 3 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.No.2997 of 2024

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

rts

To

The Chief Educational Officer, District Collectorate Compound, Salem District – 636 001.

Cont.P.No.2997 of 2024

10.09.2025

Page 4 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the respondent, Chief Educational Officer, Salem District, was guilty of deliberate and wilful disobedience of this Court's order dated 05.02.2024 in W.P.No.23800 of 2022 so as to warrant punishment under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.¶11
The court held
No contempt is made out against the respondent and the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶27
2.
Whether V.Anthoniammal Selvarani was entitled to approval of her appointment and monetary benefits from 09.06.2017 notwithstanding that she had ceased working in the petitioner's school (until her resignation), including whether her appointment could still be approved.¶25
The court held
Since the concerned teacher was not working in the school, there is no question of approval of her appointment, and as such she is not entitled for any salary from the respondent.ratio¶27

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Section 11¶11 Section 11¶11

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 05.02.2024 in W.P.No.23800 of 2022 of this Court, which the respondent (Chief Educational Officer, Salem) allegedly deliberately and wilfully disobeyed by failing to approve the proposal appointing V.Anthoniammal Selvarani as B.T. Assistant (Maths) with effect from 09.06.2017; the contempt petition sought punishment under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.¶11
High Court of Judicature at Madras · 05.02.2024
Prior proceeding
Writ petition W.P.No.23800 of 2022: this Court's order dated 05.02.2024 directed the respondent to approve forthwith the petitioner's proposal for appointment of V.Anthoniammal Selvarani as B.T. Assistant (Maths) with effect from 09.06.2017.¶19
Prior proceeding
Respondent filed a counter: on 03.01.2025 the District Educational Officer inspected the petitioner's school and reportedly found V.Anthoniammal Selvarani had ceased working there from 21.06.2023; it was further asserted she was not working in the school even at the time the writ order was passed, and that the petitioner had not disclosed this in the contempt petition.¶20
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's counsel contended that V.Anthoniammal Selvarani remained entitled to monetary benefits from her initial appointment on 09.06.2017 until her resignation.¶25

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
A.Leema Pushpam, Correspondent and Headmistress, Jayarani Girls Higher Secondary School, Nethimedu, Salem District¶7
Mr.G.Mutharasu
respondent
Kabeer, Chief Educational Officer, Salem District¶9
Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari

Coram

AI extract

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 10 Sept 2025 · September
Registered: 27 Sept 2024
Case no.: CONT P/2997/2024
CNR: HCMA011613332024
Topic: Contempt of Court
Bench: G.k. Ilanthiraiyan
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Cont.P.

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.k. Ilanthiraiyan

P.Keertana Vs the National Medical Commission
9 Sept 2025
B.Karthika Vs the Registrar
9 Sept 2025
Tamilnadupalli Mattrumkaloori Vs the State of Tamilnadu
9 Sept 2025
Acer India (Pvt) Limited Vs The Inspector General of
10 Sept 2025
A.Sivagurunathan, Vs Mr. Gunasekaran and 2 others
10 Sept 2025
V.Kamakshi, Vs Thiru. Ganesan
10 Sept 2025

Cite this judgement

A. Leema Pushpam, v. Thiru. Kabeer, CONT P/2997/2024 (MAD), decided on 10 September 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Section 11 · Section 11

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Order dated 05.02.2024 in W.P.No.23800 of 2022 of this Court, which the respondent (Chief Educational Officer, Salem) allegedly deliberately and wilfully disobeyed by failing to approve the proposal appointing V.Anthoniammal Selvarani as B.T. Assistant (Maths) with effect from 09.06.2017; the contempt petition sought punishment under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.High Court of Judicature at Madras · 05.02.2024
Writ petition W.P.No.23800 of 2022: this Court's order dated 05.02.2024 directed the respondent to approve forthwith the petitioner's proposal for appointment of V.Anthoniammal Selvarani as B.T. Assistant (Maths) with effect from 09.06.2017.
Respondent filed a counter: on 03.01.2025 the District Educational Officer inspected the petitioner's school and reportedly found V.Anthoniammal Selvarani had ceased working there from 21.06.2023; it was further asserted she was not working in the school even at the time the writ order was passed, and that the petitioner had not disclosed this in the contempt petition.

View full history

Bench / Coram

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Parties & counsel