Dismissed¶44

D.I. Chelladurai, v. the Director of School Education

Madras HC17 Apr 2026WA(MD)/611/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Minority institution; Article 30(1) Constitution of India; Rule 15(4) Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974; headmaster promotion; seniority principle; W.A.No.367 of 2007 dated 21.09.2007; (2007) 1 SCC 386; Tuticorin Nazareth Diocese; Ranji Aaron Higher Secondary School; approval of promotion 05.02.2014; Clause 15 Letters Patent; W.A(MD)No.611 of 2021; C.M.P(MD)No.2771 of 2021; W.P(MD)No.9325 of 2012; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; G.R.Swaminathan J.; R.POORNIMA J.; writ appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ appeal was dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P(MD)No.2771 of 2021) was closed. ¶44

D.I. Chelladurai, Vs the Director of School Education — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.A(MD)No.611 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶8

W.A(MD)No.611 of 2021

¶9

and

¶10

C.M.P(MD)No.2771 of 2021

¶11

D.I.Chelladurai

¶12

... Appellant / Petitioner

¶13

Vs.

¶14

1.The Director of School Education, College Road,

¶15

Chennai - 6.

¶16

2.The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Officer, Seenavana Higher Secondary School Campus, Tuticorin.

¶17

3.T.D.T.A. Company,

¶18

Company Under the Companies Act, 5, Punithavathiar Street, Palayamkottai - 627 002.

¶19

4.The Manager,

¶20

High Schools / Higher Secondary Schools And Special Schools, Tuticorin Nazareth Diocese, Tuticorin.

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

W.A(MD)No.611 of 2021

¶24

5.S.Prabakaran,

¶25

Headmaster (Retd.), Ranji Aaron Higher Secondary School, Anandapuram (Post), Tuticorin District. ... Respondents / Respondents

¶26

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated 02.11.2020 passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.9325 of 2012.

¶27

For Appellant : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj for M/s.Veera Associates For Respondents : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader for R.1 & R.2 No Appearance for R.3 to R.5

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

¶30

The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us. The appellant as well as the fifth respondent were employed in the school run by the third respondent diocese. When vacancy arose in the post of Headmaster in the said school, the fifth respondent was promoted to the said post. The writ petitioner was also considered. However, the Management selected the fifth respondent for the said post. Challenging

¶31

2/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.A(MD)No.611 of 2021

¶34

the same, W.P(MD)No.9325 of 2012 was filed. The learned single Judge vide order dated 02.11.2020 dismissed the said writ petition. Questioning the same, this Writ Appeal has been filed.

¶35

2.It is not in dispute that the school in question is a minority institution. The entire case of the writ petitioner is that the fifth respondent is junior to him and that the impugned promotion has to be set aside for having been overlooked the seniority principle.

¶36

3.It is well settled that the Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, relied on by the writ petitioner is not applicable to minority institutions. The Madras High Court in W.A.No.367 of 2007 dated 21.09.2007, dealt with the said issue. Paragraph 15 of the said Judgment reads as follows:

¶37

“15. Judged in light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in (2007) 1 SCC 386 (supra), the provisions which lay down qualification for appointment of teachers are obviously required to be followed; whereas the procedure contemplated in Rule 15(4) of the Rules severely constricting the scope of the discretion of the Management in appointment of teachers and confining the same to a particular source would be violative of Article 30(1). Therefore, such provisions

¶38

3/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.A(MD)No.611 of 2021

¶41

are not required to be followed by the minority institutions. In view of the above, we cannot agree with the view expressed by the learned single Judge under the impugned judgment and such decision is liable to be over-turned.”

¶42

Therefore, the entire case of the writ petitioner fails and the learned single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition.

¶43

4.The learned Special Government Pleader points out that, during the pendency of the writ petition, promotion of the fifth respondent was also approved by the authorities on 05.02.2014. Both the writ petitioner as well as the fifth respondent have retired from service. There is no merit in this writ appeal.

¶44

5.This Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶45

[G.R.S., J.] [R.P, J.] 17.04.2026

¶46

MGA

¶47

¶48