High Court · 2025

W.P(MD)No.19861 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 23.07.2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANANW.P(MD)No.19861 of 2025andW.M.P(MD)No.15305 of 2025G.Rajan ... PetitionerVs.1.The Director, Directorate of School Education Department, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai.2.The District Educational Officer, (Primary) Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.3.P.Parvathadevi, Headmistress, No.73, Renganathapuram, Udangudi, Tiruchendur Taluk, Tuticorin District. ...Respondents(R3 is impleaded vide Court order dated 23.07.2025 in WMP(MD)No.15747 of 2025)Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19861 of 2025record relating to order dated 30.05.2025 in Na.Ka.No.4031/A3/2024 on the file of second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to reinstate the Petitioner as Secretary of school committee of R.M.V. Middle School, Sirunadar Kudiyiruppu, Kulasekarapattinam. For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.ArunFor R1 & R2 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government AdvocateFor R3 : Mr.V.Rajiv RufusORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the second respondent and consequently directing the second respondent to reinstate the Petitioner as Secretary of school committee of R.M.V. Middle School, Sirunadar Kudiyiruppu, Kulasekarapattinam.2. This is the second round of litigation before this Court. The petitioner was earlier removed from the post of Secretary of the School Committee by an order dated 01.07.2024 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.1146/A3/2024. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.17527 of 2024. The writ petition was dismissed on 05.08.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ appeal before the 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19861 of 2025Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.2390 of 2024, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal by way of remand with the following observations:“7. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that such an opportunity, as required under Rule 25(5) of the 2023 Rules, was not extended to the appellant. While that being so, the consequential cancellation order would be in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, the appellant would be justified in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without availing the appellate remedy under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, which legal proposition has been reiterated in a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the decision in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1. 8. In the light of the above discussion, the order of the learned Single Judge, deflecting the appellant to avail the statutory appellate remedy, cannot be sustained. However, we are of the considered view that the third respondent herein could be extended an opportunity to take further course of action in this matter, after extending due opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant.9. In the light of the above observations and findings, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.17527 of 2024 dated 05.08.2024, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent herein, who shall take further course of action, after consideration of the explanation given by the appellant to the show cause notice on 18.06.2024 and 21.06.2024, as well as extending due opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. Such orders shall be passed at least within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The Writ Appeal stands allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19861 of 20253. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was called upon by the second respondent to appear for an enquiry on 06.03.2025. On that date, the petitioner was presented with a questionnaires consisting of 21 questions. However, the petitioner was unable to answer the same, as according to the petitioner, all the records were not available with him to answer. Therefore, he took time to answer the same. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner had sent the answers on 07.04.2025 but no acknowledgement was given to the petitioner. The petitioner once again sent the answers by registered post on 11.04.2025, which according to the petitioner was received by the second respondent on 12.04.2025. To this effect, the petitioner has also filed an extract form the postal department's website regarding the tracking of consignment. 5. It is submitted that the covering letter enclosing the answers to the questionnaire was booked on 11.04.2025. However, the impugned order records that the petitioner has not replied to the same. Therefore, the order passed on 01.07.2025 was reconfirmed. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:“vdNt mtiu nrayuhff; nfhz;l gs;spf;FOtpw;F 01.01.2023 Kjy; %d;whz;LfSf;F xg;Gjy; 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19861 of 2025toq;fg;gl;l ,t;tYtyf nray;Kiwfs; %.K.vz;.241/m3/2023 ehs;.15.03.2023I ,uj;J nra;J ,t;tYtyf nray;Kiwfs; vz;.e.f.vz;.1146/m3/2024 ehs; 01.07.2024,d;gb xg;gspj;J mt;thiz ,jd; %yk; cWjp nra;J Miz toq;fg;gLfpwJ.jdpahh; gs;spfs; xOq;FKiw tpjpfs; 2023y; tpjp 25(4)d;gb Kd; mwptpg;G nfhLf;f Ntz;Lk; vd;w eilKiwapd;gbAk; md;dhhplk; tpsf;fKk; Vw;fdNt Nfhug;gl;L md;dhh; 18.06.2024 kw;Wk; 21.06.2024 ehspl;l tpsf;fq;fs; mspj;Js;shh;. nrd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk; kJiu fpis WA(MD)No.2390/2024 ehs; 21.11.2024 kPJ mspj;Js;s Mizg;gb gs;sp nrayh; Neub tprhuizf;F 06.03.2025 ,y; ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F tUif ju miof;fg;gl;lhh;. mt;tprhuizapd; NghJ mthplk; tpdhg;gb mspf;fg;gl;lJ. mijg; ngw;Wf; nfhz;l mth; tpdhg;gl;bia G+h;j;jp nra;J tprhuizapd; NghJ rkh;g;gpf;fhky; mt;tpdhg;gl;bAld; ntspNawp tpl;lhh;. mjd; gpd;dUk; mjid ,Jehs; tiuapYk; md;dhh; ,t;tYtyfj;jpy; rkh;g;gpf;ftpy;iy. ,jd;%yk; cah;ePjkd;wk; gpwg;gpj;j cj;juTg;gbAk; md;dhh; rhptu tprhuizf;F xj;Jiof;ftpy;iy. vdNt md;dhh; Vw;fdNt mspj;Js;s 18.06.2024 kw;Wk; 21.06.2024 ehspl;l tpsf;fq;fisg; ghprPypj;J NkNy Fwpg;gpl;lthW gs;sp nrayh; kw;Wk; gs;spf;FO epakd xg;Gjy; ,uj;J nra;ag;gl;lij cWjp nra;J Mizaplg;gl;bUf;fpwJ.Nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l Miz kPJ fPo;f;Fwpg;gpl;l gs;spr; nrayh; gjtpapy; ,Ue;J te;j jpU.f.uh[d; vd;gtUf;F jpUg;jp ,y;iynadpy; jkpo;ehL jdpahh; gs;spfs; xOq;FKiw tpjpfs; 2023y; tpjp 25(4)d; fPo; Nky;KiwaPL mYtyuhd nrd;id – 6 njhlf;ff;fy;tp ,iz ,af;Feh; mth;fsplk; ,t;thiz ngw;w xU khjj;jpw;Fs; Nky;KiwaPL nra;ayhk; vd;w tptuk; njhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.” 6. The learned counsel for the newly impleaded third respondent, who is the Head Mistress of the School with whom the petitioner appears to have a dispute which has resulted in the earlier order dated 01.07.2024 and 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19861 of 2025impugned order submits that the petitioner has an alternate remedy.7. The learned Government Advocate for the official respondents submits that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School Regulation Act and Rule 2(b) and 2 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023 before the Joint Director, since the order has been passed by the District Elementary Officer. Therefore, he submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.8. On perusal of the records, it is evident that the petitioner did not reply to the questionnaire that was handed over to the petitioner on 06.03.2025. Instead, by s communication dated 07.04.2025, the petitioner has submitted a few documents, as detailed below: 1.gs;spapd; tiuglk; - 1937,y; cs;sJ (Scale 10=1) 2.gs;spapd; tiuglk; - 2013,y; cs;sJ (not per Scale)3.gs;sp; epyj;jpd; gl;lh - 20074.gs;sp; epyj;jpd; gl;lh – 20245.gs;spapy; gl;lh – md;iwa Njjpapy; Md;iyapy;6.gs;sp CCTV footage 10.06.2024 md;W ele;jit6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19861 of 20259. It is submitted that the petitioner vide representation/reply dated 11.04.2025 has submitted the following documents:1.ehd; tpw;wJ gs;spapd; mUfpy; cs;s vdf;F gjpag;gl;l nrhj;J vd;gjpd; Mtzq;fSk;.2.gs;spapd; tiuglk; - 1937,y; cs;sJ (Scale 10=1) 3.gs;spapd; tiuglk; - 2013,y; cs;sJ (not per Scale)4.gs;sp; epyj;jpd; gl;lh - 20075.gs;sp; epyj;jpd; gl;lh – 20246.gs;spapy; gl;lh – md;iwa Njjpapy; Md;iyapy;7.gs;sp CCTV footage 10.06.2024 md;W ele;j Kf;fpakhd epfo;Tfs;.8.gs;spapd; Gifg;glq;fs;.10. However, the petitioner has not answered to the 21 specific questions raised in the questionnaire dated 06.03.2025. In fact, the reply dated 11.04.2025 categorically brings out the fact that the petitioner has not answered to the said questions.7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19861 of 202511. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will reply to the 21 questions. 12. Recording the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order stands quashed subject to the petitioner reply to the 21 questions raised in the questionnaire dated 06.03.2025 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the petitioner fails to reply to the same, the second respondent is at liberty to reconfirm the order dated 01.07.2024 and the impugned order dated 30.05.2025. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the second respondent.13. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 23.07.2025NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / Nosn8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19861 of 2025To1.The Director, Directorate of School Education Department, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai.2.The District Educational Officer, (Primary) Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19861 of 2025C.SARAVANAN, J. sn W.P(MD).No.19861 of 2025 23.07.202510/10