WP/10009/2024 of C.R.KASTURI Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 13 November 2026

COMMON ORDER

W.P.No.10009 of 2024 has been filed by one C.R.Kasthuri (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to regularize her services as Vocational Instructor / Computer Science Teacher from the date of her initial appointment and to grant all consequential benefits.

2. W.P.No.25169 of 2024 has been filed by St. Francis Xaviers Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as the School), challenging the order dated 26.06.2024, whereby the School was directed to pay salary to the petitioner (sixth respondent) in accordance with the Seventh Pay Commission.

3. Since the issues involved in both the Writ Petitions are intertwined and interconnected, they are taken up together for common disposal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.10009 of 2024 would contend that, as per G.O.Ms.No.35, School Education (VE) Department, dated 09.02.2007, the Government had sanctioned 201 full-time Vocational Instructors to be converted from part-time Vocational Instructors and that the petitioner was initially appointed as a part-time Vocational

Instructor. However, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, two full-time teacher posts under the vocational stream were sanctioned to each school. Hence, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner having been appointed in May 1997 and 201 full-time Vocational Instructor posts having been sanctioned, she is entitled to be regularized from the date of her initial appointment, namely, May 1997. However, the respondent authorities had regularized the petitioner only with effect from 09.04.2009, which is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.525. Hence, he prayed to allow the Writ Petition. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. V.Nazarayan (W.A.No.1665 of 2019, dated 07.08.2023) and M.Theivanayagi vs. State of Tamil Nadu (W.A.(MD).No.1350 of 2019, dated 27.11.2019).

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that, when the petitioner was regularized in terms of G.O.(2D).No.14, School Education (VE) Department, dated 09.04.2009, subject to a specific condition that she would be entitled only to the Contributory Pension Scheme, she cannot now seek to take advantage of the date of her initial appointment. She would further contend that the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the petitioner arose in cases where individuals sought regularization, whereas, in the case in hand, the petitioner had already been regularized, and her only grievance is that she should have been regularized with effect from the date of her initial appointment. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further contend that, since the petitioner had not challenged G.O. (2D).No.14, dated 09.04.2009, she cannot seek issuance of a Writ of Mandamus. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the said Writ Petition.

6. Similarly, in W.P.No.25169 of 2024, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the School would contend that, though the petitioner's post was sanctioned as per the staff fixation order, the said post was brought under the unaided scheme. When the School issued an appointment order to the petitioner, a specific condition was imposed therein that the petitioner was not a Government servant and, therefore, the rules and regulations governing Government servants would not be applicable to her. It is also his contention that the petitioner's net salary as on the date of her retirement was Rs.48,336/- and that she was also sanctioned provident fund benefits to the tune of Rs.22,40,538/-.

6.1. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that, though the post occupied by the petitioner was upgraded, it was brought under the unaided scheme, and the Government has no authority to direct the School to pay salary in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable to

Government servants. Such a direction would be in contravention of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Correspondent/Principal vs. T.Sorubarani, reported in 2015-5 L.W. 544. Hence, he prayed to allow W.P.No.25169 of 2024 and dismissing W.P.No.10009 of 2024.

7. By way of reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.10009 of 2024 would contend that the post held by the petitioner is an approved post, that too in aided school and that, in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2019, the School is liable to pay salary to her on par with Government school teachers. Therefore, the School cannot take a stand that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of the Seventh Pay Commission.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

9. Coming to W.P.No.10009 of 2024, the sum and substance of the prayer is for regularization with effect from the date of the petitioner's initial appointment, viz., 1997. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon G.O.Ms.No.35, School Education (VE) Department, dated

09.02.2007, and G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, to substantiate her case that two posts were sanctioned in each school, it is not disputed by the petitioner that she was regularized in terms of G.O.(2D).No.14, dated 09.04.2009. The said regularization order contains a specific condition that the petitioner would be entitled to the Contributory Pension Scheme, which was introduced with effect from 01.04.2003. Admittedly, the said order has not been challenged.

10. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the judgments in V.Nazarayan's case (cited supra) and M.Theivanayagi's case (cited supra), those judgments of the Division Bench arose out of cases seeking regularization. Though, in those Writ Petitions, regularization was directed from the date of initial appointment, in the case on hand, the petitioner had already been regularized, subject to the specific condition that she would be entitled only to the benefits under the Contributory Pension Scheme. Further, the said order has not been challenged all these years and reached finality. In such circumstances, the question of treating the date of the petitioner's regularization as the date of her initial appointment cannot be acceded to, as the original order of regularization remains unchallenged. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the Writ of Mandamus sought for in W.P.No.10009 of 2024 cannot be granted. Hence, the said Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. Coming to W.P.No.25169 of 2024, though the petitioner's post was upgraded and duly sanctioned, such upgradation was made subject to the specific condition that the School shall not claim any grant, as specifically referred to in G.O.(3D).No.85, dated 15.06.2012. Based upon such upgradation, when the petitioner was appointed to the post of Middle Grade Assistant / BT Assistant on 31.01.2015, the said condition was specifically mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the appointment order. For ready reference, the same are extracted hereunder:- “2. As on date yours is a Management Post. Hence the Management and you are not bound by the orders of the government regarding the appointment and salary. Sectioning of a post implies sanction of the salary. When the Government Order does not permit the teacher to be paid from the General Fund and hence claim the deficit grant, she is no more a Government Servant and hence rules and regulations that govern a Government servant does not apply to you.

4. No pension or other benefits will be claimed from the Management at the time of Retirement.”

12. From the above narration, it is amply clear that, even at the time of her appointment, the petitioner was put on notice that she would be treated as unaided staff. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the staff fixation order, even the same specifically mentioned that the post is only an unaided post. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner would be an employee of the School Management alone and cannot be treated as an aided school.

13. In this regard, it is relevant to extract paragraphs 26 and 27 of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in T.Sorubarani's case (cited supra), which read as follows:- “26. Thus, the issue regarding claim of salary by unaided school staff on par with the Government School/Aided School staff is no longer res integra. In order to avoid prolixity, we have not reiterated the arguments and considerations which have already been raised before the earlier Division Benches. Also, since the learned single Judge has gone into the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in detail, we have not repeated the observations here again.

27. This Court would also like to place on record that even the staff of the State Government are not paid salary on par with their counterparts of the Central Government. In such situation, the State Government cannot force the Management of a private school to pay salary to its staff on par with the staff of the State Government, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, will indirectly forcing the institution to surrender the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.”

14. In view of the above ratio, the staff of unaided schools cannot claim salary on par with the staff of Government or aided schools. As held by the Full Bench of this Court, any direction issued to a minority institution to pay salary to its employees on par with Government employees would indirectly compel the minority institution to surrender the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the School, the direction issued by the District Educational Officer directing the School authorities to pay salary and other benefits in accordance with the Seventh Pay Commission is contrary to the decision of the Full Bench. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

15. In view of the above, W.P.No.25169 of 2024 is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.06.2024 is hereby quashed. Similarly, W.P.No.10009 of 2024 is dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. 13-11-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV

To

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep By its Secretary, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-09.

2. The Director Directorate of School Education, D.P.I. Compound, College Road, Chennai-06.

3. The Joint Director Directorate of School Education, D.P.I. Compound, College Road, Chennai-06.

4. The Chief Educational Officer Presidency Girls Higher Secondary School Campus, Gengu Reddy Road, Opp. Santhosh Hospital, Egmore, Chennai-08.

5. The District Educational Officer Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Near Sidco Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai-49.

6. The Correspondent St.Francis Xavier Anglo Indian Girls Higher Secondary School No.208, Broad Way, Chennai-108.

7. The Inspector of Anglo Indian Schools DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai-06.

8. The District Educational Officer (Anglo Indian / Elementary Education) Triplicane, Chennai-05.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP Nos. 10009 and 25169 of 2024 13-11-2026