Madras High Court
WP/18264/2022 of J.Sheeba Saathiya Devakirubai Vs Director of School Education on 21 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP Nos. 18264 and 20309 of 2022
CNR:{HCMA011061762022}
and
WMP Nos. 17607 and 19522 of 2022
and
WMP Nos. 17183 and 6730 of 2026
WP Nos. 18264 of 2022
J.Sheeba Saathiya Devakirubai
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Director of School Education
DPI Buildings, College Road, Chennai-06.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Vellore.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Vellore.
4. The Correspondent
..Respondent(s)
WP No. 20309 of 2022
CNR:{HCMA011061832022}
N.Ida Priyadarshini
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Director of School Education,
DPI Buildings, College Road, Chennai – 06.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Vellore.
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:57:24 pm )
Vellore.
4. The Correspondent,
Concordia High School, Perambut.
..Respondent(s)
Common Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in Na. Ka.
No.2813/ A3/ 2021 dated 26.10.2021 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s):
in both W.Ps
M/s. V.Srimathi
For Respondent(s):
in both W.Ps
Mr.V.Sivalingam,
Government Advocate (for R1 to R3)
No appearance (for R4)
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.
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the rejection of the petitioners’ appointments, vide order dated 26.10.2021, passed by the second respondent.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the approval for the appointment of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that the Court-appointed Administrator had not given clearance for the appointment of the petitioners as Teachers in the School. In such circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would rely upon the order passed by this
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:57:24 pm )
Court in W.P.No.23465 of 2022 and would contend that the Court-appointed Administrator was subsequently discharged from the Administration with effect from 01.11.2022, and the newly elected Office Bearers had taken over the management of the School with effect from 01.11.2022. Since the earlier order passed by the respondent authority was based upon the appointment of the Administrator by this Court, and the said Administrator was subsequently discharged from the Administration, the learned counsel would submit that the circumstances have now changed.
3. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on instructions, would submit that the new Management of the fourth respondent-School supports the appointment of the petitioners as staff in the School. He would further submit that the petitioners are willing to submit a fresh representation to the fourth respondent-School, requesting the Management to forward the proposal for appointment of the petitioners in the School to the third respondent, for obtaining approval of the petitioners’ appointments.
4. In view of the above, by following the order of this Court in W.P.No.23465 of 2022 dated 08.11.2022, the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the second respondent is hereby quashed and these Writ Petitions are
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:57:24 pm )
allowed on the following terms.
a) The petitioners are directed to submit a fresh representation to the fourth respondent School, requesting the fourth respondent to send a proposal for approving the petitioners’ appointment as staff in their School, to the third respondent, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
b) On receipt of the said representation, the fourth respondent shall according to it’s own merits, forward the proposal, if they are satisfied with the petitioners’ representation, to the third respondent within a period of two weeks thereafter;
c) On receipt of the said proposal from the fourth respondent, the third respondent shall process the said proposal and forward the said proposal to the second respondent within a period of one week thereafter;
d) The second respondent is directed to pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law, on the fourth respondent’s proposal if any received, seeking approval for appointment of the petitioners as staff within a period of four weeks thereafter;
e) Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed; and
f) There shall be no order as to costs. 21-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:57:24 pm )
KV To
1. The Director of School Education DPI Buildings, College Road, Chennai-06.
2. The Chief Educational Officer, Vellore.
3. The District Educational Officer, Vellore.
4. The Correspondent
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:57:24 pm )
C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP Nos. 18264 and 20309 of 2022 21-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:57:24 pm )