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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal allowed: the order of the learned Single Judge (allowing W.P.(MD)No.2574 of 2016) is set aside; no costs awarded; the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.(MD)No.5035 of 2020) is closed. The appellants (education department) thereby prevailed on the appeal on the lapse-of-time ground.

Issue for consideration

Whether, more than 31 years after the respondent's father died in service (28.01.1994) and with the writ petitioner now aged around 52 years, her claim for compassionate appointment could still be pursued, notwithstanding the department's unfair handling of her request. +1 more

Court's answer

Owing to sheer lapse of time — the father's death in service in 1994, more than 31 years having elapsed and the petitioner being around 52 years old — this Court was constrained to interfere despite acknowledging the petitioner's fair-treatment claim; it set aside the learned Single Judge's order and allowed the writ appeal.

Key takeaways

This Court acknowledged that the writ petitioner had been dealt with unfairly and endorsed the learned Single Judge's view that rejecting her compassionate-appointment request on account of her marital status was patently unsustainable; however, the Court expressly did not rest its disposition on this ground ('on a different ground altogether'), so this assessment does not form the basis of the decision.obiter¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Division Bench (G.R. Swaminathan, J., author; K. Rajasekar, J.), judgment dated 11.08.2025 in W.A.(MD)No.922 of 2020 (filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent). Subject: compassionate appointment in the School Education department. Facts: the respondent's father, Chinnaswamy, a Secondary Grade Teacher, died in service on 28.01.1994; the petitioner applied in time on 28.08.1995 but the request was rejected on the sole ground of her marriage. An earlier writ petition, W.P.(MD)No.5314 of 2009, succeeded and the matter was remitted; on remittance the request was again rejected on the same ground vide order dated 26.08.2013. W.P.(MD)No.2574 of 2016 challenged that re-rejection, and the learned Single Judge allowed it by order dated 28.05.2020, deeming the marriage-based reason patently unsustainable. The department appealed. While acknowledging the petitioner had been dealt with unfairly and approving the Single Judge's characterisation of the marriage-based rejection, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal 'on a different ground altogether': sheer lapse of over 31 years and the petitioner's age of around 52 years constrained it to interfere. Disposition: Single Judge's order set aside; writ appeal allowed; no costs; connected C.M.P.(MD)No.5035 of 2020 closed. Respondent made no appearance. No precedent case is cited in the judgment.

W.A.(MD)No.922 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 11.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

W.A.(MD)No.922 of 2020 and

C.M.P.(MD)No.5035 of 2020

1.The Joint Director of School Education,

Employees Division, D.P.I. College Road,

Chennai - 6.

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

3.The District Educational Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul. ... Appellants

Vs.

C.Kavitha ... Respondent

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.2574 of 2016 dated 28.05.2020 on the file of this Court.

1/7

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

W.A.(MD)No.922 of 2020

For Appellants : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar, Spl. Government Pleader.

For Respondent : No appearance

JUDGMENT (By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

The department is on appeal challenging the order dated

28.05.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(MD)No.2574 of 2016 filed by the respondent herein.

2.The respondent has been served and her name is printed in the cause list. But she has not chosen to enter appearance either in person or through counsel.

3.The respondent's father / Chinnaswamy joined the education department as Secondary Grade Teacher. He passed away while in service on 28.01.1994. The writ petitioner applied to the department seeking appointment on compassionate grounds within time ie., on 28.08.1995 itself. Interestingly, the request came to be rejected much later. It was put to challenge in W.P.(MD)No.5314 of 2009. The writ 2/7

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

W.A.(MD)No.922 of 2020

petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the file of the appellants herein. Subsequently, vide order dated 26.08.2013, the writ petitioner's request was rejected citing the very same reason. Questioning the same, W.P.(MD)No.2574 of 2016 was filed. The reason set out in the rejection order was that the writ petitioner got married and hence, she was not eligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds. The learned Single Judge rightly held that this reason is patently unsustainable.

4.However, we are inclined to allow this writ appeal on a different ground altogether. The writ petitioner's father had passed away in the year 1994. We are now in 2025. More than 31 years have elapsed. The writ petitioner must be aged around 52 years. We acknowledge that the writ petitioner had been dealt with unfairly. Her father had passed away while in service, the application was submitted in time; she must have been granted compassionate appointment when her turn came. By citing her martial status, her request was rejected. When the rejection order was set aside by this Court and the matter was remitted back, once again on the very same ground, her request was negatived. We cannot appreciate

3/7

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

W.A.(MD)No.922 of 2020

or approve the manner in which the department has considered the writ

petitioner's request. Be that as it may, due to sheer lapse of time, we are constrained to interfere. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,) 11.08.2025

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

To:

1.The Joint Director of School Education, Employees Division, D.P.I. College Road, Chennai - 6.

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

3.The District Educational Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

4/7

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

W.A.(MD)No.922 of 2020

5/7

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

W.A.(MD)No.922 of 2020

6/7

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

W.A.(MD)No.922 of 2020

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and K.RAJASEKAR, J.

ias

W.A.(MD)No.922 of 2020

11.08.2025

7/7

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