WP/10117/2003 of C.USHA Vs GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, REP on 26 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

Although WP.No.12349 of 2012 was not originally listed today, it has been taken up along with WP.No.10117 of 2003. Learned counsel for all parties placed their arguments in both cases. Since the underlying facts are identical, W.P.No.12349 of 2012 has been included in the additional list and is taken up today for final hearing. Case of the writ petitioner:

1. The petitioner submitted that from the academic year 1980–81, Kunnagal Girls High School started functioning with Standards VI to IX. The school was recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu and aid was sanctioned. From the academic year 1985–86, the school was upgraded to a Higher Secondary School and its name was changed to Devi Girls Higher Secondary School. It is a non-minority aided school governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.

2. The petitioner further submitted that she graduated with a B.Sc. in Zoology in 1982, completed her B.Ed. in April 1987, and belongs to the BC community. In 1991, one Mrs.A.Little Flower was the Headmistress-in- charge of the High School and was working as an Assistant Science Teacher. Upon her promotion as a Higher Secondary School Headmistress, a permanent vacancy arose in the post of Science Teacher. The petitioner was appointed to this vacancy on 03.06.1991 by the respondent/Correspondent.

3. The petitioner submitted that she worked continuously without any break from 03.06.1991, yet no salary was paid to her for more than 11 years. She further stated that when she joined as a B.T. Assistant (Science), three posts were sanctioned, including the Science Teacher post. The petitioner also stated that one ‘Arulmary’ was appointed in 1982, and the respondent/Correspondent failed to secure approval for either the petitioner or the said ‘Arulmary’ in proportion to the actual student strength available in the school. The petitioner further contended that the respondent/Correspondent had four sanctioned posts. Since her service was not approved, she filed the present writ petitions.

Case of Respondents/Department:

4. The respondents denied the contentions of the petitioner and asserted that no such sanctioned post as claimed by the petitioner is available in the school. They stated that the promotion of Mrs.Little Flower to the post of Headmistress did not create any vacancy in the school.

5. The respondents further claimed that on the basis of the order passed in W.P.No.2250 of 2002 dated 01.02.2002, the Chief Educational Officer issued proceedings dated 20.03.2002, informing the petitioner that there was no permanent sanctioned post. Consequently, the petitioner was relieved from her post on 15.04.2002 by the respondent/Correspondent. The petitioner subsequently filed W.P.No.8335 of 2009 seeking regularisation of her service. The respondents submitted that via proceedings dated 23.03.2010, the petitioner’s claim was rejected, and they accordingly prayed for the dismissal of these writ petitions.

Case of the Respondent/Correspondent:

6. The respondent contended that no appointment order was ever issued in favour of the petitioner and therefore, she was not entitled to claim regularisation. They further stated that no post of B.T. Assistant (Science) was available in the school and prayed for the dismissal of these petitions. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner:

7. The writ petitioner submitted that she worked continuously from the year 1991 following the promotion of Mrs.A.Little Flower, who was originally the B.T. Assistant (Science) teacher. The petitioner contended that the post became vacant upon that promotion and that she was duly appointed to it and that it remained a sanctioned post in the respondent/Correspondent. Therefore, the respondents ought to have regularised her service in the post of B.T. Assistant (Science). The petitioner argued that the respondents' claim that no such post was available and their subsequent rejection of her claim is legally unsustainable and prayed for the writ petitions to be allowed.

Arguments on behalf of the respondents:

8. The respondent/Department submitted that in view of the promotion of Mrs.A.Little Flower to the post of Headmistress, the question of a vacancy does not arise. They stated that the school only has sanctioned posts for B.T. Assistant (Maths) and B.T. Assistant (History) available for appointment. As there is no vacancy for a B.T. Assistant (Science), the claim of the writ petitioner is legally unsustainable, and they prayed for dismissal of the same.

9. The respondent/Correspondent supported the case of the respondent/Department and added that no appointment order was issued to the petitioner.

Discussion:

10. This Court has heard the counsel for the petitioner, the Government Advocate appearing for respondent/Department, and the counsel for the respondent/Correspondent.

11. Following the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent/Department, a reply affidavit was filed on behalf of the writ petitioner. In paragraph 11 of the reply affidavit, it is stated as follows: “11. I humbly submit that the Director has stated that the Chief Educational Officer in his proceeding dated 03.01.1996, as erroneously stated as B.T.Assistant Science instead of History. The contention cannot be accepted because the proceeding of the Chief Educational Officer dated 03.01.1996 was relating to the fixation for the year 1993-94 consequent to the promotion of Smt.Little Flower. Just to save Smt.Sandhiba, History B.T. Assistant, the management ought have sought for an addition instead of erratum and chief Educational officer issued suitable addition by fixing three regular BT Post as one for Maths subject and one for History subject and the another one for the Science subject. It is pertinent to say that after a lapse of five years from the date of fixation for the year 1993-1994 particularly after the additional posts of BT assistant was sanctioned as per GoM.S.No.523 dated 29.12.97, the Chief Educational Officer in favour of the School authority has issued suitable erratum in its proceeding No.11403/A6/98 dated 26.8.98 by fixing 2 BT posts as one for Maths, and another one for the History subject. Therefore the entire episode is contrary to the fixation already done and the Management has not properly brought the facts before the authorities and with malafide intention filed the counter by suppressing the above said excising fact.”

12. From the aforementioned reply statement, this Court observes that on 26.08.1998, the respondent/Department had issued a clarification which was communicated to the writ petitioner, informing her that only two B.T. Assistant posts were available in the school, one for Maths and another for History. The said communication was never challenged by the writ petitioner before this Court.

13. The primary contention of the writ petitioner predicated on the ground that a B.T. Assistant (Science) post was vacant after the promotion of Mrs.A.Little Flower is legally unacceptable. Merely because a teacher working in the same school is promoted does not automatically leave their previous subject post vacant, as clarified by the respondent/Department in its order and reiterated in the counter-affidavit.

14. In view of the foregoing facts, this Court finds no illegality in the respondent/Department's rejection of the petitioner's claim. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 26-10-2026 (2/2) Index: Yes Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Sni To

1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

3. The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District, Office at Nagercoil.

4. The District Educational Officer, Thakkalai, Kanyakumari District.

5. The Correspondent, Devi Girls Higher Secondary School, Kunnamagal Vaniakudi Post, Colachel, Kanyakumari District.

KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. Sni WP Nos. 10117 of 2003 & 12349 of 2012 26-10-2026