The Director of School Education Vs C.Haima — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The Director of School Education Vs C.Haima — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Writ Court order dated 29.11.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.23269 of 2019 was set aside; the Writ Appeal was allowed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.(MD)No.3013 of 2020) was closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether re-employment can be claimed as an absolute right of a retired teacher, or is a concessional scheme to be extended in consonance with the terms stipulated by the Government, particularly where surplus teachers are working in the same district. +1 more

Court's answer

Re-employment cannot be claimed as an absolute right of a teacher; it is a concessional scheme to be extended scrupulously in consonance with the terms stipulated by the Government under the scheme.

Ratio / Principle

When a surplus teacher is working in the same district, re-employment to a teacher who has already retired cannot be granted as per the scheme.

Key takeaways

The respondent has not rendered service after her date of superannuation, which bears on the denial of re-employment.ratio¶31
This Court does not find any infirmity in the decision taken by the competent authorities declining to grant re-employment to the respondent.ratio¶32
The Writ Court's basis that re-employment is a matter of right to be extended runs counter to the policy decision of the Government.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), W.A.(MD)No.431 of 2020, judgment dated 19.06.2025 (S.M.Subramaniam and Dr.A.D.Maria Clete, JJ.), appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent by the Director of School Education, Chief Educational Officer (Tirunelveli), District Educational Officer (Tenkasi) and the Headmaster, GHS Kattalaikudiruppu, to set aside the single-judge (Writ Court) order dated 29.11.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.23269 of 2019 concerning re-employment of C.Haima, a B.T. Assistant (Science) who retired on superannuation on 31.10.2019 and whose application was rejected by the Chief Educational Officer on 29.10.2019 because four surplus teachers were working in the same district. The appellate bench decides that re-employment is not an absolute right but a concessional scheme to be extended scrupulously per Government-stipulated terms; where a surplus teacher works in the same district, re-employment to an already-retired teacher cannot be granted; the respondent also served nothing after superannuation. Finding no infirmity in the authorities' decision and observing that the Writ Court's rights-based approach ran counter to Government policy, the Court set aside the Writ Court order, allowed the appeal with no costs, and closed the connected C.M.P.(MD)No.3013 of 2020.

W.A.(MD)No.431 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 19.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

AND

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

W.A.(MD)No.431 of 2020 and

C.M.P.(MD)No.3013 of 2020

1.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.

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

3.The District Educational Officer, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

Now at

The District Educational Officer, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

4.The Headmaster, Government High School, Kattalaikudiruppu, Sengottai Taluk, Tenkasi District. ... Appellants -VsC.Haima ... Respondent

Page 1 of 4

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

W.A.(MD)No.431 of 2020

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 29.11.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.23269 of 2019 on the file of this Court.

For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok,

Additional Government Pleader

For Respondent : No Appearance

JUDGMENT

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

The order of the Writ Court dated 29.11.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No. 23269 is under challenge in this Writ Appeal.

2.The respondent filed the said Writ Petition, challenging the order of the rejection passed by the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District dated 29.10.2019, declining re-employment to the respondent.

3.Admittedly, the respondent was holding the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2019. An application was submitted by the respondent seeking re-employment. However, the educational authorities rejected the same mainly on the ground that four surplus teachers were working in the same district in other Government Schools.

Page 2 of 4

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

W.A.(MD)No.431 of 2020

4.Re-employment cannot be claimed as an absolute right of a teacher. Re-employment is a concessional scheme to be extended scrupulously in consonance with the terms stipulated by the Government under the scheme. When the surplus teacher is working in the same district, re-employment to the teacher, who already retired, cannot be granted as per the scheme. That apart, the respondent has not served after her date of superannuation.

5.Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the decision taken by the competent authorities, declining to grant re-employment to the respondent. However, the Writ Court has proceeded on the basis that re-employment is a matter of right, which is to be extended, which in the opinion of this Court is running counter to the policy decision of the Government.

6.Thus, the order of the Writ Court dated 29.11.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.23269 of 2019 is set aside and accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[S.M.S, J.] & [A.D.M.C., J.] 19.06.2025

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Yuva

Page 3 of 4

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

W.A.(MD)No.431 of 2020

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

Yuva

W.A.(MD)No.431 of 2020

19.06.2025

Page 4 of 4

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