M.K.Saravanan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.11448 of 2016 dated 28.11.2022 on the file of this Court.

¶24

For Appellant : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran, For M/s.Ajmal Associates.

¶25

For Respondents : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, Spl. Government Pleader for R1 to R4. Mr.N.Dilipkumar for R5 & R6. Mr.J.Barathan for R7.

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶28

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 28.11.2022 dismissing W.P.(MD)No.11448 of 2016 filed by the appellant herein.

¶29

2.The appellant herein was working as B.T.Assistant (History) in

¶30

the fifth respondent school. Vacancy arose in the post of P.G.Assistant (English). The school management considered the credentials of the writ

¶31

2/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.A.(MD)No.431 of 2025

¶34

petitioner as well as the seventh respondent / P.Sundar Raj and eventually promoted Sundar Raj to the post of P.G.Assistant (English). Challenging the same, Saravanan / writ petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.11448 of 2016 and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Questioning the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

¶35

3.The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of writ appeal and endeavoured to demonstrate that the process adopted by the school management was perverse.

¶36

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the school management as well as the learned counsel for the promoted candidate submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge does not call for interference.

¶37

5.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. We are clearly of the view that in matters such as this, the Writ Court will not be justified in substituting its opinion in the place of the conclusion arrived at by the selection committee.

¶38

3/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.A.(MD)No.431 of 2025

¶41

6.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the school management and the learned counsel for the promoted candidate, even if we assume that the writ petitioner as well as the seventh respondent are on par with each other in terms of merit and ability, still Sundar Raj will be preferred as his subject was English both in the degree as well as master's degree. On the other hand, the writ petitioner's case is that of cross major. The writ petitioner after acquiring B.A (History) degree, obtained master's degree in English. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference and the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

(G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,) 12.06.2025

¶43

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

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

W.A.(MD)No.431 of 2025

¶47

To: