Madras High Court
WP/3738/2011 of INBALATHA WILSON Vs CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY on 30 September 2026
WP No. 3738 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WP No. 3738 of 2011
and
MP No. 1 of 2011
CNR: {HCMA010287652011}
Inbalatha Wilson,
Wife of P.T.Wilson,
No.5, Lakshmanan Nagar, West Street, Peravallur, Chennai-82.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Central Board of Secondary
Education, Rep. By Secretary, PS-1-2
Institutional Area, Patparangi, Delhi – 110092.
Having its Regional Office at:
Plot 1630 A, “J” Block, 16th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 40.
2. The Director General,
Ordinance Factory Board, Esplanade East, Calcutta-700069.
3. The General Manager,
Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi, Chennai-54.
4. HVF English Medium Educational
Society, Rep. By Its Secretary, Vijayanta Senior Secondary School, Near EME Lines, HVF Estate, Avadi Chennai-54.
5. The Secretary,
Vijayanta Senior Secondary School, Near EME
Lines, HVF Estate, Avadi Chennai-54.
..Respondent(s)
WP No. 3738 of 2011
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the service of the petitioner on and from April, 2011 till May, 2013 as one in regular service and pay the benefits to which she is entitled to.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. B. Pramodraj,
for Ms. V. Srimathi
For Respondent(s):
Mr. T. Sri Krishan Bhagavat, (for R1)
Mr. B. Sudhir Kumar, (for R2 to R5)
Senior Central Government Standing Counsel
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
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent as well as the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5.
2. The petitioner, by the present writ petition, has sought a direction to the respondents to treat her service from April 2011 till May 2013 as regular service and to pay the consequential benefits to which she is entitled. She had also sought an interim direction to permit her to continue in service in the fifth respondent School till 31.05.2013, pending disposal of the writ petition.
3. This Court while issuing notice of motion, by order dated 21.02.2011 in M.P.No.1 of 2011, granted the interim direction as prayed for, for a period of four weeks.
WP No. 3738 of 2011
4. By virtue of the interim direction granted by this Court, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to continue in service in the fifth respondent School for a period of four weeks. It has not been brought to the notice of this Court, that the respondents having violated the interim injunction order granted by this Court either by filing a contempt petition or by filing a sub-application to that effect.
5. That being so, by virtue of the interim relief granted by this Court, part of the relief sought for by the petitioner has worked itself out.
6. Further, it is also to be noted that a Division Bench of this Court, in The Chairman, HVF English Medium Educational Society, Vijayanta Senior Secondary School, H.V.F. Estate, Avadi, Chennai and one Anr., vs. R. Thirunavukarasu and 3 Ors., (W.A.No.2887 of 2023, decided on 02.09.2026), concerning Vijayanta Senior Secondary School, held that the fourth respondent/School cannot be treated as “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
7. Following the aforesaid dicta laid down by the Division Bench, this Court, by order dated 21.09.2026 in W.P.No.2422 of 2017, and also referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Army Welfare Educational Society Vs. Sunilkumar Sharma and others reported in 2024 (16)
WP No. 3738 of 2011
SCC Online 598, held that the fourth respondent/School cannot be treated as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek relief against the said School in relation to her service by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. As noted hereinabove, since, by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, a part of the relief sought for the petitioner having worked itself out, and also this Court having held that the fourth respondent/Society and the fifth respondent/School are not amenable to writ jurisdiction in respect of the petitioner's service claim, this Court is of the view that nothing further survives for consideration in the present writ petition.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition has become infructuous and the same is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 30-09-2026 (2/3) Speaking/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Case Citation: Yes/No KLT
WP No. 3738 of 2011
To
1. The Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, PS-1-2, Institutional Area, I.P. Extn., Patparangj, Delhi – 110092. Having its regional office at Plot No.1630 A, “J” Block, 16th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040.
2. The Director General, Ordinance Factory Board, Esplanade East, Calcutta-700069.
3. The General Manager,
Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai-54.
4. The Secretary, HVF English Medium Educational Society, Vijayanta Senior Secondary School, Near EME Lines, HVF Estate, Avadi, Chennai-54.
5. The Secretary, Vijayanta Senior Secondary School, Near EME Lines, HVF Estate, Avadi, Chennai-54.
WP No. 3738 of 2011
T.VINOD KUMAR, J. KLT WP No. 3738 of 2011 and MP No. 1 of 2011 30-09-2026 (2/3)