The Secretary Vs the District Elementary — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The Secretary Vs the District Elementary — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the DEEO's order dated 26.12.2016 and the AEEO's letter dated 30.03.2017 should be quashed and the respondents directed to approve Mrs. A. Selvavalli's appointment as Headmaster of the petitioner school with effect from 02.08.2012 with all monetary benefits. +1 more

¶PRAYER in W.P.

Court's answer

The writ petition filed by the Petitioner Management is devoid of merit, in view of the stand taken by the respondents and the earlier order of this Court in Selvavalli's case.

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 02.02.2023 in the teacher's writ petition is equally binding on the Petitioner Management, which was arrayed as third respondent therein and ought in fairness to have withdrawn the present petition once that order was passed on merits.

Key takeaways

W.P. (MD) No. 22033 of 2017 is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/- payable to the 1st Respondent in their official capacity within four weeks; the connected W.M.P. (MD) No.18331 of 2017 is also dismissed.ratio¶11
The private aided school blatantly misused its official position by repeatedly litigating in favour of a teacher closely connected to it, wasting the valuable time of the Court; such conduct must be appropriately dealt with.obiter¶2

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, W.P. (MD) No.22033 of 2017, pronounced 29.08.2025, Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete) by the Secretary of an aided primary school at Kakanallur, Tirunelveli, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash (i) the DEEO Tirunelveli's order in Na.Ka.No. 3803/A3/2014 dated 26.12.2016 rejecting approval of Mrs. A. Selvavalli's appointment as Headmistress with effect from 02.08.2012, and (ii) the AEEO Ambasamudram's letter in Aa.Thi.Mu.No.79/Al/2017 dated 30.03.2017, and to direct approval of the appointment with monetary benefits. The Court observed this was the management's second round of litigation (a third round counting the teacher's own petition), amounting to proxy litigation for a teacher who sat on the school committee as the educational agency's representative; the Headmistress post being promotional, two eligible teachers (Ms. Juliet Jyothimani and Ms. K. Geetha) were passed over when the management, by design, obtained letters of declining promotion from them. An earlier writ by the management (W.P. No. 20687 of 2016, disposed 26.10.2016) had yielded a direction to the DEEO to decide the representations dated 29.10.2011, 09.11.2015 and 15.07.2016; the resulting order rejected approval, recording that Selvavalli lacked the prescribed educational qualification/experience. The teacher's own identical writ (W.P. (MD) No. 10780 of 2019) was dismissed by this Court on 02.02.2023, holding that her candidature could not be considered for lack of Secondary Grade teaching experience/certificate (B.Sc. Zoology and B.Ed.; Montessori service not countable), and that order bound the management as third respondent. Holding the present petition devoid of merit, the Court dismissed it with costs of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the 1st Respondent within four weeks, and dismissed the connected stay petition W.M.P. (MD) No.18331 of 2017.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Two orders challenged: (i) order of the 1st Respondent (DEEO, Tirunelveli) in Na.Ka.No. 3803/A3/2014 dated 26.12.2016 rejecting approval of A. Selvavalli's appointment as Headmistress; (ii) letter/order of the 2nd Respondent (AEEO, Ambasamudram) in Aa.Thi.Mu.No.79/Al/2017 dated 30.03.2017, which merely called for two copies of the representation.¶PRAYER in W.P.
District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli / Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Ambasamudram · 26.12.2016 and 30.03.2017
Prior proceeding
Petitioner management earlier filed W.P. No. 20687 of 2016 before this Court seeking a direction to consider its representation dated 29.10.2011 for permission to appoint A. Selvavalli as Headmistress; by order dated 26.10.2016 this Court disposed of it, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the representations dated 29.10.2011, 09.11.2015 and 15.07.2016 as per the Joint Director of Elementary Education, Chennai's direction dated 11.08.2016, within four weeks.¶3
Prior proceeding
In compliance with this Court's directions, the 1st Respondent DEEO, Tirunelveli passed the order now impugned; its operative portion (quoted in the judgment in Tamil) declines approval of Selvavalli as Headmistress for lack of the prescribed educational qualification/experience despite her Montessori service, and directs steps for revocation of her appointment.¶4
Prior proceeding
Despite the rejection, the Petitioner School submitted a fresh representation to the subordinate AEEO seeking disposal of the approval request; by letter dated 30.03.2017 the AEEO merely called for two copies of the representation for further action, which the petitioner strangely treated as a second impugned order.¶5
Prior proceeding
Writ petition listed on 04.12.2017; notice accepted on behalf of the respondents; the 2nd Respondent thereafter filed a detailed counter affidavit dated 23.02.2018.¶6
Prior proceeding
Paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit disclosed that the primary school Headmaster post fell vacant from 01.09.2007; Tmt. A. Selva Valli was a member of the school committee as representative of the educational agency; she obtained her B.Ed. degree certificate on 12.10.2010, Montessori Training certificate on 30.05.2010, and service certificates on 04.07.2012 and 18.07.2012; after collecting all certificates by 18.07.2012 the school committee appointed her on 02.08.2012 despite her unqualifications, the vacancy having been prolonged with motive to appoint her.¶6
Prior proceeding
As the management could not secure any order in favour of A. Selvavalli in 2019, she herself filed W.P. (MD) No. 10780 of 2019 seeking the very same relief as in the present writ petition, without disclosing the pendency of the present petition despite being a school committee member closely connected with the management.¶8
Prior proceeding
This Court disposed of Selvavalli's writ petition on 02.02.2023, dismissing it: her candidature for the promotional Headmaster post could not be considered as she lacked Secondary Grade teaching experience/certificate (her qualifications being B.Sc. Zoology and B.Ed.; Montessori service not countable); approval could not be granted; remittal would not serve the purpose; her candidature could be considered only for any future vacancy in accordance with law.¶9