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.

The Director of School Education Vs M.Sivagami — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2025
The Director of School Education Vs M.SivagamiThe Director of School Education v. M.Sivagami

Allowed¶22

The Director of School Education v. M.Sivagami

Extension of service beyond superannuation – concession, not an absolute right

Madras HC23 Jun 2025WA(MD)/276/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; W.A.(MD) No.276 of 2020; decision 23.06.2025; State appeal against writ order granting relief to retired teacher M.Sivagami; held extension of service is a concession, not an absolute right; rejection of extension justified by availability of surplus teachers in Ramanathapuram district; terms of Government extension-of-service Scheme to be strictly followed; W.P.(MD) No.24363 of 2019 (order dated 26.11.2019) set aside; appeal allowed, no costs, connected C.M.P.(MD) No.1968 of 2020 closed; filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; writ order dated 26.11.2019 in W.P.(MD) No.24363 of 2019 set aside; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.(MD) No.1968 of 2020) closed. ¶22

Why is it important?

Extension of service period is a concession and cannot be claimed as an absolute right by teachers; the terms and conditions of the Government Scheme implementing extension of service must be followed scrupulously, and the respondent, whose request was rejected because surplus teachers are working in the same district, cannot claim extension of service as a matter of right. ¶17

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal allowed; writ order dated 26.11.2019 in W.P.(MD) No.24363 of 2019 set aside; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.(MD) No.1968 of 2020) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether a retired teacher can claim extension of service beyond the age of superannuation as a matter of right, where the request was refused on the ground that surplus teachers are available in the same district to be accommodated in vacant posts under the Government's extension-of-service Scheme.

Court's answer

Extension of service period is a concession and cannot be claimed as an absolute right by teachers; the terms and conditions of the Government Scheme implementing extension of service must be followed scrupulously, and the respondent, whose request was rejected because surplus teachers are working in the same district, cannot claim extension of service as a matter of right.

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Court did not consider the scope of the extension-of-service Scheme and the terms and conditions stipulated in the relevant Government Orders; accordingly, the writ order dated 26.11.2019 in W.P.(MD) No.24363 of 2019 is liable to be and is set aside.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Extension of service beyond superannuation — concession, not an absolute right — Government Scheme framed for the benefit of students; terms and conditions must be followed scrupulously — teacher permitted to retire on superannuation on 31.07.2019; request for extension rejected on the ground that surplus teachers in the same district were to be accommodated against vacant posts — Writ Court erred in not considering the scope of the Scheme and the relevant Government Orders — writ order dated 26.11.2019 in W.P.(MD) No.24363 of 2019 set aside and writ appeal by the State allowed (S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete, JJ.).

A

W.A.(MD) No.276 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 23.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

W.A.(MD) No.276 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD) No.1968 of 2020

1.The Director of School Education DPI Campus, College Road Chennai-6 2.The Chief Educational Officer Ramanathapuram District Ramanathapuram 3.The District Educational Officer Mandapam Educational District Mandapam, Ramanathapuram District 4.The Head Master Government Higher Secondary School Kannirajapuram, Ramanathapuram District ... Appellants -vs-

M.Sivagami ... Respondent

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

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

W.A.(MD) No.276 of 2020

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 26.11.2019, passed in W.P.(MD) No.24363 of 2019, on the file of this Court.

For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Ms.D.Meenalochini for Mr.K.Gokul

J U D G M E N T

[Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

The State has preferred the present writ appeal mainly on the ground that extension of service was declined to the respondent on the ground that surplus teachers are working in the same district.

2. Extension of service period is a concession and it cannot be claimed as an absolute right by the teachers. Admittedly, the respondent was allowed to retire from service on attaining her age of superannuation on 31.07.2019 and she was relieved from service. Her application seeking extension of service period was rejected by the authority concerned on the ground that surplus teachers are working in the same district and those

Page 2 of 5

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

W.A.(MD) No.276 of 2020

teachers may be accommodated in the vacant post in order to ensure that imparting of education to the children is not affected. Extension of service period being a Scheme implemented by the Government for the benefit of the students, the terms and conditions in this regard are to the followed scrupulously and therefore, the respondent cannot claim extension of service period as a matter of right. The Writ Court has not considered the scope of the Scheme and the terms and conditions stipulated in the relevant Government Orders. Therefore, the writ order is liable to be set aside.

3. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed and the writ order dated 26.11.2019, passed in W.P.(MD) No.24363 of 2019, is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[S.M.S., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.] 23.06.2025

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

krk

_____________ Page 3 of 5_

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

W.A.(MD) No.276 of 2020

To:

1.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-6.

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

3.The District Educational Officer, Mandapam Educational District, Mandapam, Ramanathapuram District.

4.The Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Kannirajapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

Page 4 of 5

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

W.A.(MD) No.276 of 2020

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

krk

W.A.(MD) No.276 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD) No.1968 of 2020

23.06.2025

_____________ Page 5 of 5_

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether a retired teacher can claim extension of service beyond the age of superannuation as a matter of right, where the request was refused on the ground that surplus teachers are available in the same district to be accommodated in vacant posts under the Government's extension-of-service Scheme.¶21
The court held
Extension of service period is a concession and cannot be claimed as an absolute right by teachers; the terms and conditions of the Government Scheme implementing extension of service must be followed scrupulously, and the respondent, whose request was rejected because surplus teachers are working in the same district, cannot claim extension of service as a matter of right.ratio¶17

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Letters PatentClause 15¶12

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Writ order dated 26.11.2019 passed in W.P.(MD) No.24363 of 2019 by this Court, sought to be set aside by the present writ appeal.¶12
This Court (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) · 26.11.2019
Prior proceeding
Respondent retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2019 and was relieved.¶17
Prior proceeding
Competent authority rejected the respondent's application for extension of service period on the ground that surplus teachers are working in the same district.¶17
Prior proceeding
The Writ Court disposed of W.P.(MD) No.24363 of 2019 by the order dated 26.11.2019 now under challenge, which this Court holds failed to consider the scope of the Scheme and the relevant Government Orders.¶21

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road Chennai-6¶7
Mr.J.Ashok
appellant
The Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram¶7
Mr.J.Ashok
appellant
The District Educational Officer, Mandapam Educational District, Mandapam, Ramanathapuram District¶7
Mr.J.Ashok
appellant
The Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Kannirajapuram, Ramanathapuram District¶7
Mr.J.Ashok
respondent
M.Sivagami¶8
Ms.D.Meenalochini

Coram

AI extract

S.M.SUBRAMANIAMauthor¶15
A.D.MARIA CLETEmember¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 23 Jun 2025 · June
Registered: 19 Feb 2020
Case no.: WA(MD)/276/2020
CNR: HCMD010118292020
Bench: S.m. Subramaniam A.d.maria Clete
Disposal: ALLOWED
Case type: W.A.(MD)

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from S.m. Subramaniam A.d.maria Clete

The Executive Officer Vs a.Karunakaran(Died)
19 Jun 2025
Hariff.M Vs The Authorized Officer
19 Jun 2025
The Director of School Education Vs C.Haima
19 Jun 2025
R.Mayilsamy Vs S.Sivarasu IAS
23 Jun 2025
The Director of Elementary Education, Vs The Correspondent, Arockia Annai Primary School
23 Jun 2025
The Managing Director Vs a.Krishnamani
23 Jun 2025

Cite this judgement

The Director of School Education v. M.Sivagami, WA(MD)/276/2020 (MAD), decided on 23 June 2025.

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

Statutes1

Letters PatentClause 15

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Writ order dated 26.11.2019 passed in W.P.(MD) No.24363 of 2019 by this Court, sought to be set aside by the present writ appeal.This Court (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) · 26.11.2019
Respondent retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2019 and was relieved.
Competent authority rejected the respondent's application for extension of service period on the ground that surplus teachers are working in the same district.

View full history

Bench / Coram

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and A.D.MARIA CLETE

Parties & counsel