C.USHA vs GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, REP

WP Nos. 10117 of 2003 & 12349 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WP Nos. 10117 of 2003 & 12349 of 2012
CNR:{HCMA010131382003}
CNR:{HCMA010053722012}
and WPMP Nos. 36737 of 2003, 1956 of 2004
and MP No. 1 of 2012
WP.No.10117/2003
..Petitioner
C.Usha
Vs
1. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Thakkalai, Kanyakumari District.
4. The Correspondent,
Devi Girls Higher Secondary School,
Kunnamagal Vaniakudi Post,
Colachel, Kanyakumari District.
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

WP Nos. 10117 of 2003 & 12349 of 2012
5. Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2
to 5 to settle all the service and monetary benefits for the writ petitioner for
the period from 03.06.1991, worked in the post of BT Assistant Science in
the 4th respondent Higher Secondary School in the approved sanctioned
post till the date of reinstatement in government service as BT Assistant in
Science on 02.01.2009.
(Prayer amended as per order of this Court dated 26.10.2026 passed in
WPMP.No.588 of 2011)
WP.No.12349/2012
..Petitioner
C.Usha
Vs
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.
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

WP Nos. 10117 of 2003 & 12349 of 2012
4.The District Educational Officer,
Thakkalai, Kanyakumari District.
5.The Correspondent,
Devi Girls Higher Secondary School,
Kunnamagal Vaniakudi Post,
Colachel, Kanyakumari District.
..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
nd
records of the impugned proceedings of the 2 respondent vide
No.52776/D1/E3/09 dated 23.03.2010 and quash the same as null and void
and against the basic principle of natural justice and consequently direct the
respondents 2 to 5 herein to pass appropriate order by regularising the
service conditions of the petitioner herein from 03.06.1991 to till the date of
reinstatement in service dated 02.01.2009 with all service and monetary
benefits.
(in both WPs)
For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Thangavel
For Respondent(s): Mr.J.Pradeep,
Government Advocate
(for Education Department)
Mr C.K.M.Appaji (for Correspondent)
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

WP Nos. 10117 of 2003 & 12349 of 2012
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.
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

WP Nos. 10117 of 2003 & 12349 of 2012
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.
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

WP Nos. 10117 of 2003 & 12349 of 2012
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.
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

WP Nos. 10117 of 2003 & 12349 of 2012
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.
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

WP Nos. 10117 of 2003 & 12349 of 2012
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.
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

WP Nos. 10117 of 2003 & 12349 of 2012
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
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

WP Nos. 10117 of 2003 & 12349 of 2012
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.
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

WP Nos. 10117 of 2003 & 12349 of 2012
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.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )

WP Nos. 10117 of 2003 & 12349 of 2012
KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J.
Sni
WP Nos. 10117 of 2003 & 12349 of 2012
26-10-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:51 pm )