P.JABARAJ SAMUEL BENEDICT vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED : 23-09-2026
ORDER PRONOUNCED : 03.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJNISH PATHIYIL
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
CNR:{HCMD010937222018}
1. P.Jabaraj Samuel Benedict
2. R.Robert Asokan
(died)
3. J.Lilly Margaret,
4. Joy Christiana Suguna
5. S.Mary Jessie Rani
6. P.Leely Mary
7. P.Vasantha Rani
8. R.Banumathi,
9. Anne Pratheeba,
(P8 and P9 are Substituted vide court order
dated.21.10.2024)
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary To Government
School Education Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Director Of School
Education, DPI Compound College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006
3. The District Educational Officer, Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur
__________
Page 1 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
4. The District Educational Officer, Tiruchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappalli
5. The Correspondent
Blake Higher Secondary School, Thanjavur 613 001
6. The Correspondent
St.Peters Higher Secondary School, Thanjavur 613 009
7. The Correspondent
Bishop Hebers Higher Secondary School, Puthur,
Tiruchirappalli 620 017
8. The Correspondent
CSI Methodist Girls Higher Secondary School,
Uraiyur, Tiruchirappalli 620 003
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to
4 to count the services of the petitioners in the post of Secondary Grade
Teachers from the date of their respective first appointment as Secondary
Grade Teacher for the purpose of fixation of pay, sanction of annual
increments, grant of selection grade scale of pay as has been given to
similarly placed teacher in the same District as well as throughout the
state in other Districts and in the light of the judgment of this Court dated
24.2.2014.
For Petitioner(s) :MrK.Rajkumar
For Respondent(s) :Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R4
No appearance for R5 to R8
__________
Page 2 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking issuance of writ
of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to count the services of the
petitioners in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher from the dates of their
respective first appointments for the purposes of fixation of pay, sanction
of annual increments, grant of Selection Grade, etc. as has been done in
the case of similarly placed teachers, by following the judgment of this
Court dated 24.02.2014 in W.P.(MD) No. 2368 to 2370 of 2014.
2. The factual narrative as has been set out in the affidavit filed by
the petitioners is as follows:
2.1. The petitioners are all qualified to be appointed as B.T.
Assistants, but were appointed in the lower post of Secondary Grade
Teachers in various minority schools since the year 1995. Their services
were approved in the said post. However, due to introduction of a policy
of the Government which directed that child psychology training is
required to be undertaken by Secondary Grade Teachers, they were
subject to such training. It is the petitioners' case that their services were
reckoned only from the date of completion of child psychology training
in 2003. However, while counting their past service from the date of first
appointment for the purpose of pay fixation, etc., there was no uniform
procedure followed throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. As a result, there
__________
Page 3 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
was discrimination. Even though the petitioners were similarly placed,
some of the teachers in other districts were given the benefit, while the
petitioners were denied of the same. The petitioners have listed several
such cases in the affidavit and contend that the aforesaid persons have all
been granted selection grade upon completion of 10 years of service by
reckoning their past service, which is as follows:-
Selection Grade on
Date of first
S.No. W.P. No. Name
appointment
completion of ten
years
1 10565 of 2015 Vairam 28.03.1998 27.03.2008
2 10566 of 2015 V. Dhanaraj 20.03.1998 27.03.2008
3 10567 of 2015 M. Shambagavalli 22.08.1997 21.08.2007
4 10568 of 2015 M.S. Sivajaya 15.04.1998 14.04.2008
5 10569 of 2015 S.S. Thangavel 01.02.1997 31.01.2007
C.L.
6 10570 of 2015
07.04.1998 06.04.2008
Rameshkrishnan
7 10571 of 2015 S. Suseela 22.08.1997 21.08.2007
8 10572 of 2015 M. Lakshmi 01.12.1997 30.11.2007
9 10573 of 2015 D. Akilandeswari 27.10.1997 26.10.2007
10 10574 of 2015 M. Krishnamurthy 11.04.1998 10.04.2008
11 10575 of 2015 M. Sankari 01.12.1997 30.11.2007
12 10576 of 2015 N. Poovarasi 28.03.1997 27.03.2007
13 10577 of 2015 J. Karthikeyan 15.12.1997 14.12.2007
__________
Page 4 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
2.2. The petitioners also would submit that vide G.O.Ms.No.559
dated 11.07.1995, a policy was introduced that persons holding higher
qualifications, such as B.T. Assistants / Tamil Pandits with a B.Ed.
degree, should not be appointed to the lower post of Secondary Grade
Teachers. The said G.O. was challenged in a batch of writ petitions in
W.P. No. 6388 of 1998 etc., (batch), and ultimately, the writ petitions
came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.05.1998. The same was taken
on appeal by the aggrieved petitioners in W.A. No. 991 to 998 of 1998,
and the Hon’ble Division Bench, vide order dated 29.06.2001, in
Secretary Correspondent, Uswathun Hasana Oriental (Arabic) Girls
Higher Secondary School v. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in 2002 Writ
LR 173 , upheld the G.O. but directed the State Government to evolve a
scheme for those graduate teachers who had already been appointed in
Secondary Grade Teacher posts up to 19.05.1998, the date of the order of
the learned Single Judge.
2.3. Thereafter, in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble
Division Bench, the State Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 155, School
Education (D2) Department, dated 03.10.2002, directing to approve the
appointments of Graduate Teachers with qualification for B.T. / Tamil
Pandit in secondary grade posts up to 19.05.1998. It was further directed
in the said G.O. that the Graduate teachers appointed between 11.07.1995
__________
Page 5 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
and 19.05.1998 should undergo a month’s training in Child Psychology,
and directed the educational authorities to approve the appointments after
completion of the said training vide G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002.
The G.O. further directed the recovery of salaries paid to those teachers
who were earlier working on the strength of the Interim Orders of the
Hon'ble Court.
2.4. The said G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002 was put to
challenge before this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P. No. 42067
of 2002, and ultimately, the writ petitions came to be dismissed.
Thereafter, Writ Appeal No. 249 of 2002 was filed, and the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.04.2004 in State of
Tamil Nadu v. Pallivasal Primary School , reported in 2004 (2) LW 591,
while upholding the aforesaid G.O., directed the Government not to
recover the salaries already paid to them, and further directed to reckon
their services rendered before completion of one-month Child
Psychology for pension purposes.
2.5. In 2003, the petitioners have undergone a month's child
psychology training, and thereafter, the petitioners were appointed with
effect from 2003, not from their original date of appointment, that is,
between the period 1995-1998. It is useful to refer to the chart which lists
out the respective date of appointments of the petitioner.
__________
Page 6 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
Date of
Approval
Appointment
Whether
Name and
S.No
Designation
After Child
they are
receiving
Date of
Retirement
(Initial
Appointme
Psychology
Training
pension
nt)
02.06.2003Yes,
w.e.f. 02.06.2003
P. Jabaraj
1 12-12-1997
Samuel Benedict
(after
Completion of
28.02.2018
Child
Psychology)
02.06.2003Yes,
w.e.f. 02.06.2003
R. Robert
2 16-11-1995
Ashokan
(after
Completion of
31.10.2014
Child
Psychology)
02.06.2003Yes,
w.e.f. 02.06.2003
(after
Completion of
3 J. Lilly Margaret 20-12-1996
31.05.2023
Child
Psychology)
02.06.2003Yes,
w.e.f. 02.06.2003
Joy Christiana
4 05-02-1996
Suguna
(after
Completion of
31.03.2012
Child
Psychology)
02.06.2003Yes,
w.e.f. 02.06.2003
S. Mary Jessie
5 16-11-1995
Rani
(after
Completion of
31.05.2018
Child
Psychology)
02.06.2003Yes,
w.e.f. 02.06.2003
(after
Completion of
6 P. Leely Mary 12-12-1997
31.08.2013
Child
Psychology)
P. Vasantha
7 12-12-1997 02.06.2003 YES 31.10.2014
Rani
__________
Page 7 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
2.6. As could be seen, most of the petitioners have been appointed
between the years 1995-97, and the child psychology training was
undertaken by them only on 02.06.2003 (completed), and thereafter, they
have been appointed with effect from 02.06.2003. The petitioners'
contention is, therefore, that instead of their appointment being
recognized from 02.06.2003, they ought to have been appointed with
effect from their date of initial appointment as secondary grade teachers.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment of
this Court in K. Panchanathan & Ors., v. The Government of Tamil
Nadu, W.P. (MD) No. 2368 to 2370 of 2014, dated 24.02.2014 and drew
the attention of this Court to the findings therein, which are extracted
hereunder:
“ 3. The petitioners are degree holders. They were
appointed as Seconeary Grade Teachers. Thereafter, they were
made to undergo Child Psychology Training. The grievance of
the petitioners is that the services rendered by them as
secondary Grade Teachers have not been taken into account for
the purpose of computing their services to grant Selection Grade
Scale of pay.
4. Considering the very same issue viz. the date of
appointment will have to be taken into account for the purpose
of counting the seniority, this Court in W.P.(MD) No.6505 of
2017, dated 16.08.2012, was pleased to held as follows:-
__________
Page 8 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
“ 11. While considering the above said plea, this Court
vide order dated 23.11.1998, has observed as follows:
“ 9....Once an appointment has been approved without
any condition, the Government has been bound to pay the
grant. In this case, it is seen that the approval has been
made without any condition. It may be a mistake by the
Department, But so long as the approval stands, being an
aided school, the Government is bound to issue a staff
grant. In fact, upto May 1998, staff grant was issued
without any compulsion. Only from June 1998, the
respondent refused to pay the grant and that can only be
on the basis of the judgment which upheld G.O.
Ms.No.559. Merely because G.O.Ms.No.589 has been
upheld that cannot be a reason for refusing the staff grant
in this case, when there is an unconditional approval for
the three teachers”.
12. In the light of the decision made in W.P.No.9854 of
1998 dated 23.11.1998, the contention of the District
Educational Officer, Paramakudi, in his counter affidavit
dated 27.01.2009, that only after completion of the training in
Child Psychology in District Institute of Education and
Training, Manjur, the appointment of the teachers was
approved on 02.06.2008 and that they would be eligible for
Selection Grade, in the post of Secondary Grade in the post of
Secondary Grade teachers, only after 10,years i.e. on
02.06.2018, cannot be countenanced. There cannot be two
approvals of the post of Secondary Grade teachers. Needless
to state that Selection Grade Scale of Pay is given to a
Government Servant considering 10 years of service put in by
him.
__________
Page 9 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
13. In the case on hand, the teachers belonging to the
Pallivasal Higher Seconeary School, Mudukulathur,
Ramanathapuram District, were appointed on 21.12.1996.
Admittedly, theyhave completed 10 years of service in 2006. As
stated supra, their appointments have been approved as
Secondary Grade teachers earlier. As observed in the order in
W.P.No.9854 of 1998 dated 23.11.1998, approval of
appointment is unconditional and that there is no alteration in
the service condition. As the petitioners have completed 10
years of service in 2006, in the post of Secondary Grade
Teachers, and considering the object in granting the selection
Grade Scale of Pay, i.e. to avoid stagnation in any particular
post, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to
the relief sought for. The objections of the respondents are
overruled. On the facts and circumstances of the case, a
Mandamus is issued directing the third respondent to grant
selection grade scale of pay to the teachers of the petitioner
school, namely (1) S.Muthu Madasamy and (2) Ali Akbar with
effect from 21.12.2006 and pay all the benefits, within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”.
...
6. In such view of the matter, the orders impugned are
set aside and the Writ Petitions are allowed. The respondents
are directed to grant Selection Grade scale of pay to the
petitioners with effect from 10.11.2007, 31.01.2007 and
31.09.2005 respectively, within a period of twelve weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. ”
__________
Page 10 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
4. The petitioners also relied on the proceedings of the District
Elementary Educational Officer in Na.Ka.No.4332/A3/2014, dated
18.06.2014, and submitted that two persons covered by the said
proceedings had been granted pay fixation, selection grade and
increments with effect from the dates of their respective initial
appointments, pursuant to orders passed by this Court. They further
pointed out that umpteen orders had been passed by this Court and the
educational authorities of Thanjavur and Trichy Districts, granting similar
benefits by reckoning the past services rendered by B.T. qualified
teachers appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers. The last such
proceedings were issued by the District Educational Officer, Thanjavur,
in Na.Ka.No.3917/A4/2014, dated 19.05.2017, pursuant to the judgment
of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.23799 of 2016, dated 08.12.2016. They
further relied on the proceedings of the Additional Assistant Elementary
Education Officer, Ammapettai, in Na.Ka.No.A2/2013, dated .09.2013,
granting Selection Grade to Tmt.G.Saraswathi with effect from
15.08.2006 by counting her service from the date of her initial
appointment, namely 08.08.1996.
5. The petitioner also referred to the judgment of a learned Single
Judge of this Court in C.Singarayan v. State of Tamil Nadu , W.P. No.
19821 of 2003 etc., (batch) dated 22.01.2013 and relied on the following
__________
Page 11 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
paragraphs:
“ 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that an identical issue was decided by
this Court in an earlier writ petition being W.P.No.4310 of 2002,
dated 09.07.2010 (R.Vimala vs. The Director of School Education).
In the said writ petition a direction was sought for to approve the
appointment of the petitioner therein as Secondary Grade Teacher.
In the said case, the petitioner, who was Tamil Pandit, was
appointed as Seconeary Grade Teacher in a school, which is aided
minority institution. This court after taking into consideration the
order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, allowed the writ
petition. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:-
7. ... The question whether the petitioner can be
penalized for not having been sent for Child
Psychology Training came for consideration before
this Court in M.Sundersingh Vs. Government of Tamil
Nadu and others (2006) 2 M.L.J. 784 and this Court
held as follows:-
“ 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is continuously working
without getting salary. Petitioner is to be paid salary
from 02.06.2003 as it has been given to other
similarly placed Teachers. As and when child
Psychology Training is given through D.I.E.T. the
petitioner shall undergo the said training. The
service of the petitioner from 07.01.1998 to
02.06.2003 shall be counted for pension purposes
only as held by the Division Bench decision reported
in 2004(2) Lw 591 (State of Tamil Nadu & others V.
Pallivsal Primary School), Denial of sending the
__________
Page 12 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
petitioner for training is due to the fault of the
respondents and therefore the same cannot be put
against the petitioner for delaying payment of his
salary.”
6. He would therefore submit that it is not as if the petitioner's case
is an isolated case. There are several orders passed by this Court,
including the ones which have been cited, and that apart, the Government
also acceded to requests and passed orders reckoning the services of
persons like the petitioners from their initial date of appointment. He
would also refer to the proceedings dated 11.09.2012 in G.O. (Ms)
No.122, Aadhi dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department and contend that
the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought. The relevant portion is
extracted hereunder:
“8. ,
இச்சுற்றறிக்கை யினை அடுத்து இத்துறை யை ச்
,
சார்ந்த சங்கங்கள் இது போ ன்ற ஆசிரியர்கள்
4
ஏற்கனவே ஆண்டுகளுக்கு மே ல்
,
பணிபுரிந்துவிட்டிருப்பதாலும் இவர்களுக்கு இந்த
குழந்தை மனநிலை ஒருமாதபயிற்சிஅவசியமில்லை
,
என்றும் இவர்கள்ஆசிரியர்பணியே ற்றநாள்முதல்
,
பணிவரன்முறை செய்துதொ டர்ஊதியஉயர்வு பணி
உயர்வு வழங்கிட கோ ரியுள்ளது என்று ஆணை யர்
.
குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளார் மே லும் இப்பணியாளர்கள்
,
கோ ரிக்கை நியாயமாக உள்ளதாக கூறி
இவ்வாசிரியர்களுக்கு குழந்தை மனநிலை பயிற்சி
,
அவசியம் இல்லை என்றும் இவ்வாசிரியர்களில்
பெ ரும்பாலோ ர் அறிவியல் மற்றும் கணிதப்
,
பாடங்களில் பட்டம் பெ ற்றவர்களாக இருப்பதால்
இவர்களதுபணியினை உயர்நிலை ப் பள்ளிகளுக்கும்
__________
Page 13 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
பயன்படுத்திக்கொ ள்ள வாய்ப்புள்ளது என்றும்
.
ஆதிதிராவிடநலஆணை யர்தெ ரிவித்துள்ளார்
7.
மே ற்காணும் சூழ்நிலை யில் ஆதிதிராவிடர் நல
,
இயக்குநரின் செயற்குறிப்பினை அரசுஆய்வுசெய்து
ஆதிதிராவிடர் மற்றும் பழங்குடியினர்
நலப்பள்ளிகளில் பட்டதாரி ஆசிரியர் தகுதிபெ ற்று
இடை நிலை ஆசிரியர்களாக நியமனம் பெ ற்று
,
பணிபுரிந்து வரும் நபர்களுக்கு அவர்கள்
,
குழந்தை கள் மனநல பயிற்சியை முடித்த பின்னர்
அவர்கள் அப்பதவியில் பணியே ற்ற நாள் முதல்
.”
பணிவரன்முறை செய்யஅரசுஆணை யிடுகிறது
7. He would say that the persons belonging to Adi Dravidar
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, recruited under the category of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, have already been extended the
benefit, and there is no reason why persons like the petitioners should be
discriminated against. He would also refer to another proceeding dated
11.09.2012 in G.O. (3D) No. 117 and contend that the petitioner would
be entitled to the relief that they have sought for. The relevant portion is
extracted hereunder:-
“4.
மே லே முதலாவதாக படிக்கப்பட்ட சென்னை
. 16383/2000
உயர்நீதிமன்றநீதிப் பே ராணை மனுஎண் ல்
3.11.2008
அன்றுவழங்கப்பட்டுள்ளதீர்ப்பாணை யின்
,
அடிப்படை யில் மே லே பத்தி இரண்டில் உள்ள
தொ டக்கக்கல்விஇயக்குநரின் கருத்துருவினை அரசு
,
கவனமுடன் பரிசீலித்து அதனை ஏற்கலாம்எனமுடிவு
, ,
செய்து அவ்வாறே தஞ்சாவூர்மாவட்டம் கும்பகோ ணம்
,
ஒன்றியம் சாக்கோ ட்டை பகுத்தறிவுபாடசாலை உதவி
பெ றும் தொ டக்கப் பள்ளி தலை மை யாசிரியர்
__________
Page 14 of 36
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
பணியிடத்தில் பட்டதாரி ஆசிரியர் தகுதி பெ ற்ற
.
திருமதி ஆர் மஞ்சுளா தே வி என்பவருக்கு பள்ளி
26.12.1997
நிர்வாகத்தல்நியமனம்செய்யப்பட்டநாளான
26.12.2002
முதல் வரை இடை நிலை யாசிரியர்
, 26.12.2002
ஊதியத்திலும் முதல் தொ டக்கப்பள்ளி
தலை மை யாசிரியர்பணியிடத்திலும் ஊதியம் மற்றும்
,
பிற படிகள் வழங்க அனுமதி அளித்து அரசு
.”
ஆணை யிடுகிறது
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. ,
reported in (1995) 5 SCC 628 , to contend that a claim relating to pay
fixation gives rise to a recurring cause of action and cannot be rejected on
the ground of delay and laches. Reliance was also placed on the judgment
in Suvisesha Muthu v. Director of Public Health , in W.P. No. 12218 of
2010 , in this regard.
9. Similarly, he would contend that when similarly placed persons
have been extended the benefit, the denial of the same to the petitioners
would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and
therefore seeks for a mandamus directing the respondents to reckon the
date of initial appointment of the petitioners and to disburse
consequential benefits.
10. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents commenced his argument by submitting that the petitioners
__________
Page 15 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
have belatedly approached this Court in the year 2018, as the issue has
been settled long back, since the first of the judgments of this Court
upholding G.O.Ms. No. 559 dated 11.7.1998 was passed 29.06.2001.
Similarly, the second important judgment which upheld G.O.Ms. No. 155
dated 03.10.2002 was passed on 02.04.2004. The right, if any, accrued on
the said date, and the petitioners have remained mute spectators and have
filed this petition after almost 16 long years, and therefore, he submitted
that the petitioners are guilty of delay and laches and are not entitled to
any relief.
11. He would cite the dates of retirement of the respective
petitioners, which have already been extracted in para 2.5. above, and
submit that the petition itself has been filed after several years of the
petitioners’ retirement, and this itself would show that they were
conscious of the fact that the date to be reckoned with was the date on
which they completed the child psychology training, and not the date of
their initial appointment as a Secondary Grade Teachers. He would cite
the judgment of C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining , (2008) 10
SCC 115 , and refer to the following paragraphs:
“10. Every representation to the Government for relief,
may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to
matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can
be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits
__________
Page 16 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the
Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did
not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate
Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may
be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such
representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive
a stale or dead claim.
11. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to
consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee
(person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under
the impression that failure to do so may amount to
disobedience. When an order is passed considering and
rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with
direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive
the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of “acknowledgement
of a jural relationship” to give rise to a fresh cause of action.”
12. He would further submit that the petitioners’ appointments
were irregular, as they were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers on
the basis of their higher qualifications, owing to the shortage of
candidates possessing the prescribed Diploma in Teacher Education,
despite the ban imposed under G.O.Ms.No.559, dated 11.07.1995, on the
appointment of B.Ed.-qualified candidates to the said posts.
13. The said G.O.Ms.No. 559 was upheld by the Hon’ble Division
__________
Page 17 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
Bench of this Court in Secretary, Correspondent, Uswathun Hasana
Oriental (Arabic) Girls Higher Secondary School v. State of Tamil
Nadu , 2002 Writ LR 173. The Division Bench, however, directed the
Government to protect the appointments made up to 19.05.1998, subject
to completion of one month's child psychology training. Pursuant thereto,
G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education (D2) Department, dated 03.10.2002,
was issued, providing that teachers appointed as Secondary Grade
Teachers between 11.07.1995 and 19.05.1998 would be granted approval
of appointment from the date of completion of the one-month Child
Psychology Training. The said Government Order was upheld in State of
Tamil Nadu v. Pallivasal Primary School , 2004 (2) LW 591 , with only
directions that salaries already paid should not be recovered and that the
service rendered prior to completion of the training shall be reckoned
only for pensionary benefits.
14. He further submitted that this issue has long since been settled,
and that the petitioners’ attempt to open a Pandora’s box by re-agitating a
settled issue is, in other words, an attempt to flog a dead horse. The
learned AGP also cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of
this Court in The Director of Elementary Education & Ors. v.
Sundaravel Raj , W.A.(MD) Nos.74 of 2015 and 957 of 2016, dated
21.03.2018, and contended that the issue has been lucidly set out in the
__________
Page 18 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
aforesaid judgment and there is no requirement to even look anywhere
outside the judgment to find an answer to the contentions raised. The
relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
“3. Since the issue involved in these appeals are
common they were heard together and disposed of by a
common judgment. These two appeals have been filed by the
District Elementary Education, challenging the orders passed
in the writ petitions filed by the respondents wherein they
sought for monetary benefits from the date of original
appointment as well as increment and benefits such as
selection grade and special grade. Though there may be a
slight difference in the two orders passed in the writ petition,
which are subject matter of the these appeals, the common
issue which fall for consideration is with regard to benefits
which will accrued to the respondent teachers pursuant to the
order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.155 School
Education (D2) Department dated 03.10.2002.
...
7. ...The question would be as to whether the Teachers
would be entitled to get salary from the date of first
appointment, I.e. the order of irregular appointment and as to
whether they would be entitled for salary in the Secondary
Grade scale from the date of completion of child psychology
training. There can be no controversy on the aspect as the
Government order clearly stipulates as to from what date the
Secondary Grade scale of pay is liable to be paid to those
Teachers including the respondents. This is contained in
Clause 3(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002, which
reads as follows:
__________
Page 19 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
“ (iii)
மே ற்கண்டநியமனங்கள்அரசாணை க்குப்
,
புறம்பாக செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளதாலும்
இந்நியமனதாரர்களால் தொ டரப் பட்ட ரிட்
மனுக்கள் மற்றும் அதனை எதிர்த்து தள்ளுபடி
செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளதாலும் மே ற்கண்ட
,
நியமனங்களுக்குநியமனமுதல்ஒப்புதல்வழங்கி
. ,
அந்நாள்முதல்ஊதியம் வழங்கஇயலாது எனவே
மே ற்கண்ட பயிற்சியை முடித்த நாளிலிருந்து
இவர்களுக்கு முறை யான இடை நிலை
,
ஆசிரியர்களாகநியமனஒப்புதல்அளித்து அந்த
நாளிலிருந்து மட்டுமே இடை நிலை ஆசிரியர்
ஊதியம் வழங்க வே ண்டும் என்று
.”
ஆணை யிடப்படுகிறது
8. Another condition, which would be relevant for the
present case is clause 3(viii) of G.O.Ms.No.155 dated
03.10.2002, which reads as follows:
“(viii)
மே ற்கண்ட நபர்கள் நியமன
ஒப்புதலின்றி பணிபுரிந்த காலத்தை
அங்கீகரிக்கப்பட்ட தனியார் பள்ளிகளில் பதவி
,
உயர்வுக்கோ ஊதியநிர்ணயத்திற்கோ ஓய்வூதியப்
பயன்கள் வழங்குவதற்கோ கணக்கில் கொ ள்ளக்
.”
கூடாதுஎன்றும்தெ ரிவிக்கப்படுகிறது
9. The management of various Schools, which had
appointed Teachers like the respondents had challenged the
validity of G.O.Ms.No155 dated 03.10.2002 and the matter
travelled upto the Division Bench and the Division Bench in
the case of The State of Tamil Nadu and others v. Pallivasal
Primary School reported in 2004-2-L.W. 591 upheld
G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002. The only relief granted to
the Teachers, who were appointed in Secondary Grade
vacancies, is the grant of salaries, whereby restraining the
__________
Page 20 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
department from effecting any recovery. Therefore,
paragraph No.3(7) of G.O.Ms.No.155 alone was set aside and
rest of the Government Order was upheld in the said decision.
It was subsequently ordered that approval/confirmation of the
appointment can be only after the date of completion of the
child psychology training. Further the Division Bench
observed that the past service i.e prior service child
psychology training shall count. After the decision rendered
in the case of Pallivasal has attained finality, the
respondent/writ petitioners seek for salary for the earlier
period as well as for other monetary benefits such as
increment, selection grade and special grade, etc. We have
given our careful consideration. We find in paragraph No.7 of
its judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench has noted the
various condition in G.O.Ms.No.155 and held that the
respondent therein would be entitled to relief as granted to
similarly placed teachers. If that is so, the ultimate conclusion
would have been to grant benefit from the date of completion
of the child psychology training. However in the penaltimate
portion of the order her salary has also been included. In our
considered view, the direction to pay salary does not
corroborate with the observation made by the Division Bench,
in the decision in the case Suganthi Victoria. The Government
had admitted that at best it can be taken as a decision
pertaining to the said case on its factual matrix and that
cannot be taken as a precedent. In the case of Government of
Tamil Nadu v. Sri Rao Bahadur AKD Dharmaraja Girls
Higher Secondary School in W.A.(MD)No.3442 of 2002 dated
08.09.2006, the Division Bench, relying on the decision of the
case reported in 2002 Writ L.R. 173, held that the salary can
be paid only after completion of the child psychology training
__________
Page 21 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
and accordingly, allowed the Government appeal.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents/writ
petitioners relied on certain other orders passed by various
single Benches including one of us (TSSJ) and on perusal of
the same, we find that in none of those decisions, the full
effect of G.O.Ms.No.155 and the conditions therein have been
thoroughly examined. Apart from that, the decision in the
case of Pallivasal Primary School has not been specifically
noted. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that those
decisions cannot be referred to advance the case of the
respondents/writ petitioners, though some of them have
attained finality. Needless to state that if there has been a
wrong decision, it cannot be treated as precedent.
11. In the light of the above reasoning, we are of the
considered view that the order passed by the Writ Court
directing disbursement of salary from the date of original
appointment, cannot be sustained, in the light of explicit
condition imposed in G.O.Ms.No.155, which was upheld by
the Division Bench in a Public Interest Litigation. Thus, for
the above reasons, the writ appeals filed by the department
has to be allowed.” (emphasis supplied)
15. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further
submit that the proceedings of the Additional Assistant Elementary
Education Officer, Ammapettai, in Na.Ka.No. A2/2013, dated .09.2013,
by which Tmt. G. Saraswathi was granted Selection Grade with effect
from 15.08.2006 by counting her service from the initial date of
__________
Page 22 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
appointment, i.e., 08.08.1996, cannot be relied upon, as they were
subsequently cancelled vide the proceedings of the Block Educational
Officer, Ammapettai, in Na.Ka.No.670/A3/2019, dated 26.12.2025,
issued in the light of the judgments of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.272 of
2017, dated 04.03.2024, and W.A.(MD) No.429 of 2020, dated
19.06.2025, and the earlier proceedings dated 31.07.2019. By the said
proceedings, the service benefits, incentives and Selection Grade granted
to Tmt. Saraswathi with effect from 08.08.1996 were cancelled as being
contrary to G.O.(Ms) No.155, since her regular appointment had been
approved only with effect from 02.06.2003, upon completion of the
training. The excess amount of Rs.10,20,680/- paid to her for the period
from 08.08.1996 to 31.07.2019 was also ordered to be recovered.
16. He also submitted that the two Government orders cited by the
petitioners, namely G.O.(Ms) No.122, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
Department, dated 02.08.2005, directing the counting of past services
from the date of first appointment, and G.O.(3D) No.117, School
Education (B1) Department, dated 11.09.2012, were issued on the
peculiar facts of those cases, where the writ petitions had ended in favour
of the petitioners and the appeals preferred against them were also
dismissed, which prompted the authorities to extend the benefit to those
petitioners alone.
__________
Page 23 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
17. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the
issue has been authoritatively settled by the various judgments, and hence
the apple cart cannot be upset at this stage.
18. In the aforesaid background and submissions of both counsels
and on perusal of the materials on record, the issue to be determined is as
to whether the petitioners would be entitled to be reckoned as being
appointed with effect from the original date of appointment as secondary
grade teachers.
19. As has been submitted by the learned Additional Government
Pleader, the appointments of the petitioners were made in deviation of
G.O.(Ms) No.559 dated 11.07.1995, which mandated that appointments
to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers cannot be made from higher
qualified persons, such as B.T./Tamil Pandit graduates holding a B.Ed.
degree. This may appear strange today, but at the relevant point in time,
since Government felt that secondary grade teachers should be appointed
from and among persons who have completed Diploma in Teachers
Education, and not from persons with higher qualifications. The said
G.O. was challenged in a batch of writ petitions, W.P. No.6388 of 1998
etc., which were dismissed on 19.05.1998. In the writ appeals, W.A.
Nos.991 to 998 of 1998, the Hon’ble Division Bench, by order dated
29.06.2001 in Secretary, Correspondent, Uswathun Hasana Oriental
__________
Page 24 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
(Arabic) Girls Higher Secondary School v. State of Tamil Nadu , 2002
Writ LR 173 , directed that those appointed between 1995 and 1998
should be saved, but that they must undergo child psychology training for
one month.
20. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the State
Government issued G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education (D2) Department,
dated 03.10.2002, directing approval of the appointments of graduate
teachers qualified as B.T./Tamil Pandits in Secondary Grade Posts
between 11.07.1995 and 19.05.1998 subject to them undergoing one
month’s training in Child Psychology. The G.O. also directed recovery of
the salaries paid to teachers who had been working on the strength of
interim orders of this Court. The said G.O.155 was challenged in a batch
of writ petitions, W.P. No.42067 of 2002, which were dismissed. In the
ensuing Writ Appeal No.249 of 2002, the Division Bench upheld the
G.O. in State of Tamil Nadu v. Pallivasal Primary School , 2004 (2) LW
591 . However, it directed that the salaries already paid should not be
recovered, and that the services rendered before completion of the one-
month Child Psychology training be reckoned only for pension purposes.
“7. So far as the approvals / confirmation is concerned,
Government was not under any duty to approve or confirm
the appointment of appellants / petitioners who did not
possess the qualifications prescribed when, they were
__________
Page 25 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
improperly appointed to the posts. Their position cannot be
equated to that of those who possess the qualification and had
been duly appointed. Their remaining in their post was only
by reason of a sympathetic view taken by the Division Bench
which had upheld the Government Order which had directed
that persons with B.Ed. Qualification are not to be appointed
in Secondary Grade vacancies.
8. Their right to be regarded as persons eligible for
confirmation / approval can be said to arise only after they
acquired, after their training, a minimum prescribed
qualification. The Government here has shown great
concession to them by allowing them to retain their position
even without obtaining the requisite diploma or certificate in
child psychology by giving to them training in child
psychology. We see nothing wrong in the Government
directing that their approval / confirmation can only be on
and after the date they complete the training. Their past
service however shall count for pension.
9. It was submitted by some of the counsel for the
appellants / petitioners that there was delay in providing
training. Complaint of this nature cannot be made by such of
these persons. Even according to them over 1000 persons
have been appointed contrary to the G.O. Ms. No: 559. The
fact that Government took some time to formulate a scheme
and provide training to them in batches cannot be a matter
for complaint especially as the continued functioning of these
persons as teachers was not disturbed on account of the time
required by the Government for providing training.
10. A submission was also made for some of those
among the appellants / petitioners that they have not been
paid salary by the State. The State was not under any
__________
Page 26 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
obligation to pay salary to persons who were not qualified
and who have been appointed contrary to Government Order.
Such persons must have been paid some amount by the
management who employed them. Government cannot be
directed to shoulder that liability for payment to such persons
and in cases where payment had not been made. What has
been said by us in relation to the persons who had received
salary and recovery from whom has been held by us to be
unwarranted, would apply to the Government as well as any
direction to it to pay salary to a large number of such persons
who did not, at the relevant time, possess the prescribed
qualification, would result in a huge burden being imposed on
the Government even when it had committed no wrong.
11. We, therefore, allow the writ appeals and writ
petitions to the limited extent of directing that no recovery be
made from the persons to whom the Government had already
released grants and paid salaries. The writ appeals / writ
petitions are disposed of accordingly. Connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
21. The effect of G.O.Ms.No.155 is evident from Clauses 3(iii) and
3(viii), which are extracted in Sundaravel Raj (supra). Clause 3(iii)
provides that, since the appointments were made contrary to the
Government Order and the writ petitions filed by the appointees had been
dismissed, approval could not be granted from the date of appointment,
nor could salary be paid from that date. The appointees were to be
approved only from the date they completed the child psychology
training. Clause 3(viii) provides that the service rendered without
__________
Page 27 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
approval shall not be counted, in recognised private schools, for
promotion, pay fixation or pension. In Pallivasal (supra), the Hon’ble
Division Bench set aside only the direction for recovery of salaries and,
as regards Clause 3(viii), directed that the earlier service shall count for
pension. The rest of the Government Order was upheld.
22. A perusal of the said judgments makes it clear that the initial
appointment is saved only for computing the length of service for pension
and not for other purposes such as increment, pay and allowances,
Special Grade or Selection Grade. This was also clearly captured in the
judgment of this Court in Sundaravel Raj (supra), where the Division
Bench set aside the direction of the Writ Court to pay salary from the date
of original appointment, and the review against that judgment was
dismissed.
23. The petitioners place reliance on the decisions in
K. Panchanathan and C. Singarayan and on the consequential
proceedings of the educational authorities. In Sundaravel Raj (supra) ,
however, the Division Bench declined to follow the Single Bench
decisions cited before it, since they had neither examined the full effect of
G.O.Ms.No.155 and the conditions stipulated therein nor taken note of
Pallivasal (supra) . The Division Bench added that a wrong decision
cannot be treated as a precedent. That reasoning applies with equal force
__________
Page 28 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
to the decisions relied on by the petitioners, and the proceedings of the
authorities issued in their wake cannot confer on the petitioners a right
which G.O.Ms.No.155, as upheld by the Division Bench, does not
recognise.
24. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, the issue has long been
settled, and the petitioners cannot seek to re-agitate the same at this
belated stage. The issue of delay and laches squarely arises in the present
case.
25. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of
India , reported in 1995 (5) SCC 628 , in support of the contention that the
grievance of the petitioners is founded on a continuing wrong giving rise
to a recurring cause of action. The relevant portion is extracted
hereunder:
“ ...It is no doubt true that if the appellant’s claim is
found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be
paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in the
future and the question of limitation would arise for
recovery of the arrears for the past period. In other
words, the appellant’s claim, if any, for recovery of
arrears calculated on the basis of difference in the pay
which has become time barred would not be
recoverable, but he would be entitled to proper fixation
__________
Page 29 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
of his pay in accordance with rules and to cessation of
a continuing wrong if on merits his claim is justified.
Similarly, any other consequential relief claimed by
him, such as, promotion etc. would also be subject to
the defence of laches etc. to disentitle him to those
reliefs.” (emphasis supplied)
26. On a perusal of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the
view that the ratio laid down therein is not applicable to the facts of
the present case. In that case, the appellant was a person in service
whose pay had been wrongly fixed, and each payment of salary
computed on such erroneous basis was held to give rise to a fresh
cause of action. The grievance of the petitioners herein stands on an
entirely different footing. The petitioners seek to have their services
as Secondary Grade Teachers counted from the date of their
respective first appointment for the purposes of fixation of pay,
sanction of annual increments and grant of selection grade, whereas
their regular appointments were approved only with effect from the
year 2003, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.155 of 2002. The said approval
was a single and completed act, which the petitioners did not assail.
The payment of salary thereafter is merely a consequence of that act
and does not constitute a continuing wrong so as to furnish a
recurring cause of action.
__________
Page 30 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
27. Moreover, even in M.R. Gupta , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court clearly held that the claim for arrears relating to the past
period, and any other consequential relief, would remain subject to
the bar of limitation and the defence of laches. The petitioners herein
seek the benefit from the date of first appointment, which is
precisely the relief that stands barred. The said decision is, therefore,
of no assistance to the petitioners.
28. The petitioners have also relied upon the judgment in
Suvisesha Muthu v. Director of Public Health in W.P.No.12218 of
2010, which held as follows:-
“44. Therefore, from the principles as enumerated in all those
Judgments referred to above, would undisputedly disclose
that on the ground of delay and laches in approaching the
authorities, or in turn approaching the Court of Law for
getting the remedy arising out of the statute the avenue cannot
be closed by taking a different view. A consideration of delay
and laches is only the matter of discretion of the Court and it
does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. Moreover, if
acceptable reasons are given by the litigant for the delayed
approach to the Court of Law, the same can be accepted in
order to decide as to whether, the petitioner can get any relief
arising out of his substantive right flow from the statute.
Therefore, by applying these broad principles as enumerated
in the above cases, in the present facts and circumstances of
the case projected before this Court, this Court has no
__________
Page 31 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
hesitation to hold that the prayer sought for by the petitioner
cannot be denied.
…
48. Therefore, this Court feels that even according to the
impugned order, the plea of delay and laches had not been
raised at all by the respondents. The said plea as has been
mainly projected by the respondents’ side through the learned
additional Government Pleader by citing the decision of this
Court and similar orders passed by the learned Single Judge,
would no way helpful to the respondents in this case and
therefore, the issue of delay and laches raised by the
respondents is hereby rejected.”
29. On a reading of the said judgment, it is evident that, the order
impugned therein did not rest on the ground of delay and laches, and it
was in that context that this Court held that it was not open to the
respondents to improve upon the impugned order by raising a new plea at
the time of hearing. The Court also observed that the consideration of
delay and laches is a matter of discretion, which may be exercised in
favour of a litigant who furnishes acceptable reasons for the delay. In the
present case, however, the petitioners have not offered any acceptable
explanation for their prolonged silence following the approval of their
regular appointments in the year 2003. The ratio of the said judgment is,
therefore, not attracted to the facts of the case on hand.
__________
Page 32 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
30. The petitioners also contended that, since similarly placed
persons had obtained relief, the same benefit should be extended to them.
In this regard, The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava , reported in (2015) 1
SCC 347 , is apposite. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that persons
who do not challenge the alleged wrongful action in their own cases and
remain silent, but subsequently approach the Court only after their
counterparts succeed, cannot claim the benefit as a matter of right and
may be treated as fence-sitters. The relevant paragraph is extracted
hereunder:
“ 22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised
exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the
wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same
and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that
their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in
time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot
claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of
similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be
treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the
acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.”
__________
Page 33 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
31. Applying the above principle, this Court finds that the
petitioners have been a fence-sitter as they have not approached the Court
when the appointments were made in the year 2003, nor did he challenge
the same thereafter, but has waited for 15 long years and filed the present
writ petitions. No cogent explanation has been offered for such inordinate
delay, and the petitioners cannot claim the benefit as a matter of right.
32. Moreover, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief at this
distant point of time. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the writ
petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
03-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
mm
To
1. The Secretary To Government
School Education Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Director Of School
Education, Dpi Compound College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 006
3. The District Educational
__________
Page 34 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
Officer, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur
4. The District Educational
Officer, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli
__________
Page 35 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
RAJNISH PATHIYIL, J.
MM
order in
WP(MD) No. 14390 of 2018
03-11-2026
__________
Page 36 of 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:48:45 pm )