Madras High Court
WP/31844/2022 of N.Shakila Vs The Chief Educational officer on 16 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 31844 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA011910742022}
N.Shakila
W/o K. Venkatesan No. 21, Rajaj Street,
Kodaiyanchi Village and Post, Via. Ambalur Vaniyambadi Taluk Tirupattur District 635 801
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Chief Educational officer
Tirupattur District, Tirupattur
2. The District Educational officer
Vaniyambadi Educational District, Tirupattur District
3. The Secretary
Hindu Higher secondary school Vaniyambadi 637 751 Tirupattur District
..Respondent(s)
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus,Directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of B.T. Assistant (social Science) in 3rd respondent school with effect from 20.04.2011 and to disburse salary to the petitioner for the period from 20.04.2011 to 02.09.2014 on par with others aong with interest for the delay in payment and to confer consequential service benefit on appointment in school Education Department in consideration of the representation lastly submitted by the petitioner dated 31.05.2021 within time frame to be fixd by this Honble Court For Petitioner(s):
Mr. S. Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondent(s):
Mrs.P.Mahalakshmi, AGP for RR1 and 2
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
When the matter ws taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that there was no proposal received from the 3rd respondent in respect of the petitioner’s claim for salary for the period from 20.04.2011 to 02.09.2014.
The learned Additional Government Pleader also submitted that a written instruction dated 16.10.2026, has been received from the District Educational Officer, stating that the claim of the petitioner with respect to salary for the aforesaid period, has to be paid only by the 3rd respondent.
The scanned image of the written instructions of the District Education Officer, is depicted hereunder:- D. .8 äUİn un M Sc B Ed. M Phil. Ih..10:3474,95/2026
1. (ols61 6D)T OIun
2. gisuysJSUS, lu660)611 IJ1 6:16.10.2026 DsGim QNŠ(6 6166: W.P.No:3 1 844 of 2022 Glsusu(p6ogasit 5T6T :02.03.2023,12.02.2024,.18.02.2025,23.05.2025 LOT6JL LÚ,6uT60ofluuoLUITIg UTT 6/L L Gusbrlsnavủust sflulai grÜ uGooflLyfilgg 18.04.2011 (950 02.09.2014 (glglJ 2sT eT ClaTLJŮLL g T600T WPNo:ST844 of 2022. Gurgu sSGolisGaf GuglLgŮLuLL AugáG T61: W.P.No:31844 of 2022. ouygaG ontuns
At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in MP.Nos.1 to 1/2013 in WP.Nos.23465 to 23467/2013. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 26.08.2013, has ordered as follows:- ‘’There shall be an order of interim direction, directing the 4th and 5th respondents to grant temporary approval for the appointment of Tmt.K.Senthamarai Selvi, Tmt.Shakila and Tmt.Lakshmi Devi, respectively, as Graduate Assistants/teachers in the petitioner School, from 18.04.2011 and to pay salary in terms of the order dated 29.04.2013, made in WP.[MD].Nos.2722 0f 2013 and etc., batch cases. However, it is made clear that they shall qualify themselves in the Teachers Eligibility Test [TET] as directed in the order dated 29.04.2013.’’
The learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to temporarily approve the appointment of the petitioner along with others. In such view of the direction, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for salary for the period during which she served under the 3rd respondent School.
Since the official respondents had taken a stand that they have not received any proposal from the 3rd respondent School, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- (a) The 3rd respondent School is directed to send a proposal to respondents 1 and 2 for claiming the salary of the petitioner for the period from 20.04.2011 to 02.09.2014, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(b) On receipt of such proposal from the 3rd respondent, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after taking note of the order of this Court dated 26.08.2013, made in WP.Nos.23465 to 23467/2013, within a further period of eight weeks thereafter’’
The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes AP To
1. The Chief Educational officer Tirupattur District, Tirupattur
2. The District Educational officer Vaniyambadi Educational District, Tirupattur District
3. The Secretary Hindu Higher secondary school Vaniyambadi 637 751 Tirupattur District
C.KUMARAPPAN, J. AP WP No. 31844 of 2022 16-10-2026