Disposed

S.Kalaiselvi v. The Chief Educational Officer

Madras HC1 Aug 2025WP(MD)/20962/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Secondary Grade Teacher sought approval of her promotion as B.T.Assistant from 23.02.2023; the school's proposal lay pending with the District Educational Officer. The court directed the officer to consider and forward the proposal to the Chief Educational Officer if otherwise in order.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to consider the promotion proposal and forward it to the first respondent within eight weeks if otherwise in order.

S.Kalaiselvi Vs The Chief Educational Officer — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.20962 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.20962 of 2025

S.Kalaiselvi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram.

¶11

The District Educational Officer (Secondary)

¶12

Ramanathapuram District.

¶13

The Correspondent, Alangaramatha Higher Secondary School, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to approve the promotion of the petitioner as B.T.Assistant with effect from 23.02.2023 with all other consequential benefits by considering the proposal dated 03.02.2025.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam

¶16

For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Sidharthan Additional Government Pleader

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD).No.20962 of 2025

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The present Writ Petition has been filed by a Secondary Grade Teacher seeking a Mandamus as against the respondents 1 and 2 for granting approval to her promotion as B.T.Assistant with effect from 23.02.2023.

¶22

2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the third respondent Management has forwarded the proposal for approving the promotion of the writ petitioner and it was returned and later, it was represented on 03.02.2025 to the second respondent. So far, the second respondent has not forwarded the same to the first respondent. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶23

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶24

4. Considering the above said facts, the second respondent is directed to consider the proposal submitted by the third respondent Management and forward the same to the first respondent, if it is otherwise in order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD).No.20962 of 2025

¶28

5. With the above said observation, this Writ Petition stands disposed

¶29

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

01.08.2025

¶31

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

¶32

1/3

¶33

¶34

The Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram.

¶35

The District Educational Officer (Secondary)

¶36

Ramanathapuram District.

¶37

3/4

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD).No.20962 of 2025

¶40

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

¶41

ebsi

¶42

W.P(MD)No.20962 of 2025

¶43

01.08.2025 1/3

¶44

4/4

¶45

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

S.Kalaiselvi v. The Chief Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kalaiselvi v. The Chief Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Sakthivel Vs The Management of

R.Jothiraj Vs The Management of State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Ltd.

P.Singaperumal Vs The Management of

K.Thirumurugan Vs D.K.Sekar

The Management Vs The General Secretary

K.Ranjith Murugan Vs The Director of School Education