Kshatriya Nadar Girls Higher vs The Chief Educational Officer

2026:MHC:3705
W.A.(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 28.08.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 09.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
W.A(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.20250 and 20251 of 2025
W.A.(MD)No.3252 of 2025:-
Kshatriya Nadar Girls' Higher Secondary School,
Represented by its Secretary,
Kamuthi,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Appellant
vs
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.S.Ariyamala ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order in W.P.(MD)No.14031 of 2021, dated 12.11.2025.
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:14 pm )

2026:MHC:3705
W.A.(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
For Appellants : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.I.Muthiah
Additional Public Prosecutor
W.A.(MD)No.3253 of 2025:-
Kshatriya Nadar Girls' Higher Secondary School,
Represented by its Secretary,
Kamuthi,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Appellant
vs
1.S.Ariyamala
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Head Master,
Kshatriya Nadar Girls Higher Secondary School,
Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order in W.P.(MD)No.17027 of 2021, dated 12.11.2025.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.I.Muthiah
Additional Public Prosecutor
2/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:14 pm )

2026:MHC:3705
W.A.(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
W.A.(MD)No.3254 of 2025:-
The Secretary,
Kshatriya Nadar Girls Higher Secondary School,
Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District. ... Appellant
vs
1.G.Ariyamala
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Head Master,
Kshatriya Nadar Girls Higher Secondary School,
Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order in W.P.(MD)No.17027 of 2021, dated 12.11.2025.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.I.Muthiah
Additional Public Prosecutor
*
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. )
All the three Writ Appeals have been filed against the common order
passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of three Writ
Petitions, dated 12.11.2025.
3/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:14 pm )

2026:MHC:3705
W.A.(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
2.W.A.(MD)No.3252 of 2025 had been filed by the petitioner in
W.P.(MD)No.14031 of 2021, aggrieved by the dismissal of the said Writ
Petition.
3.W.A.(MD)No.3253 of 2025 had been filed by the petitioner in
W.P.(MD)No.14030 of 2021 aggrieved by the dismissal of the said Writ
Petition.
4.W.A.(MD)No.3254 of 2025 had been filed by the third respondent
in W.P.(MD)No.17027 of 2021 aggrieved by the order of the learned Single
Judge allowing the said Writ Petition.
5.All the Writ Appeals have been filed by Kshatriya Nadar Girls'
Higher Secondary School. They had filed W.P.(MD)Nos.14030 of 2021 and
14031 of 2021 in the nature of a Mandamus and in the nature of a
Certiorari, respectively, seeking approval of a proposal submitted by them
on 18.01.2021 against the third respondent therein/G.Ariyamala by which
proposal, they had not extended the probation for G.Ariyamala and also to
quash the proceedings of the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram,
4/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:14 pm )

2026:MHC:3705
W.A.(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
dated 27.07.2021 by which proceedings, the School Management was
directed to permit G.Ariyamala to continue in service in their School. Both
the Writ Appeals have been dismissed necessitating filing of two Writ
Appeals.
6.Independent of these Writ Petitions, G.Ariyamala filed
W.P(MD)No.17027 of 2021 in the nature of a Mandamus seeking
permission to sign in the attendance register from 05.03.2021 and to
implement the order of the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram,
who had directed continuance of her service under the School run by the
appellant herein.
7.Since all the facts were interconnected, the learned Single Judge
had taken up all the three Writ Petitions together and had rendered a
common order, dated 12.11.2025 dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the
Management and allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Teacher,
G.Ariyamala.
5/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:14 pm )

2026:MHC:3705
W.A.(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
8.It is to be seen that G.Ariyamala, is said to have been working in
the appellant School even prior to issuance of appointment order on
04.03.2019, as a management staff. She was, however, appointed as
Physical Education Teacher by appointment order, dated 04.03.2019. This
is the only appointment order issued in her favour. Her probation should
have been declared after a period of two years and had not been declared.
On the other hand, before the end of two years, on 12.01.2021, the
Management had forwarded a proposal to the Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram, terminating the service of G.Ariyamala.
9.It was the case of G.Ariyamala that this particular communication
by the Management to the Chief Educational Officer had not been
communicated to her. She claimed that non-declaration of probation was
arbitrary and illegal and vindictive.
10.The Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram had refused to
accept the proposal and had directed the School authorities to recognize her
service. This communication had been put to challenge by the erstwhile
management before the learned Single Judge.
6/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:14 pm )

2026:MHC:3705
W.A.(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
11.The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out Rule 15-A of
the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1972,
which related to declaration of probation of a Teacher, who had been
appointed. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that
a probationer remains on probation and not as regular staff necessitating
initiation of disciplinary proceedings before termination.
12.The fact that probation had not been declared is neither denied nor
disputed. The fact that the proposal terminating the probation before the
period of two years was forwarded is also neither denied or disputed. The
only issue before this Court and also before the learned Single Judge is
whether this procedure terminating the service before declaration of
probation within a period of two years is permissible.
13.The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1980) 3 SCC 428 in the case of Oil and
Natural Gas Commission and others -vs.- Dr.Md.S.Iskender Ali , in which
a Three Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in categorical terms
that termination of temporary service of a probationer by an innocuous
7/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:14 pm )

2026:MHC:3705
W.A.(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
order is in accordance with the terms of appointment and Article 311(2) of
the Constitution of India is not attracted. It was further held that motive for
termination is immaterial. It was also held that the Court should not
ordinarily go into the office files to find out any possible stigma.
14.In that case, the respondent therein was informed that he had been
selected for a temporary post as Medical Officer in the appellant
organisation. During the period of probation, there were certain reports
against him. After a period of one year, his probation was extended for
another six months. There was no order either confirming or extending the
period of probation. Thereafter, the order of termination was issued to him
stating that his services were terminated with effect from the date of service
of the order. This order was put to challenge. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
had held as follows:
“9....... It is well settled by a long course of decisions of
this Court that in the case of a probationer or a temporary
employee, who has no right to the post, such a termination of his
services is valid and does not attract the provisions of Article 311
of the Constitution. ......”
8/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:14 pm )

2026:MHC:3705
W.A.(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
15.The learned Counsel further relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (1997) 2 SCC 191 , in the case of Kunwar Arun
Kumar -vs.- U.P.Hill Electronics Corporation Limited and Others ,
wherein, it had been held that termination of service for non-satisfactory
performance of a probationer was held not stigma. It had been held as
follows:
“5........ During the period of probation, the authorities are
entitled to assess the suitability of the candidates and if it is found
that the candidate is not suitable to remain in service they are
entitled to record a finding of unsatisfactory performance of the
work and duties during the period of probation. Under these
circumstances, necessarily the appointing authority has to look
into the performance of the work and duties during the period of
probation and if they record a finding that during that probation
period, the work and performance of the duties were
unsatisfactory, they are entitled to terminate the service in terms
of the letter of appointment without conducting any enquiry. .......”
16.The learned Counsel for the appellant further relied on a judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 15 SCC 73 in the case of
Director, Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Science
(ARIES) -vs.-Devendra Joshi and others , wherein again, it had been held
9/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:14 pm )

2026:MHC:3705
W.A.(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
that an innocuous order terminating the service at the end of probation
period does not carry any stigma.
17.The learned Counsel for the appellant further placed reliance on a
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in (2010) 3 MLJ 651 ,
in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu by Secretary -vs.-
Prof.Dr.S.Boopathiraj and another , wherein, in paragraph No.15, it had
been held as follows:
“15.All the above would make it evident that the first
respondent who was actually on his probation period of one year,
was terminated since his service during that period was not found
satisfactory, and he was not fit to be appointed to the permanent
post. That apart, the termination order did not contain any
imputation, stigma, penal or punitive consequences, and it was
only a simpliciter. Under the circumstances, the contention put
forth by the first respondent's side that he did not know the
enquiry to be conducted and no opportunity of being heard was
given to him would not at all arise.”
18.To buttress his arguments on the legal issue, as stated, the learned
Counsel for the appellant was emphatic that since the respondent Teacher
had been issued with an order terminating her service before the end of the
10/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:14 pm )

2026:MHC:3705
W.A.(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
period of probation, no stigma was attached and the appellant was well
within their right to issue such an order. It was also contended that Article
311(2) would not apply. In the order terminating the probationer, it had
been stated that her services were not satisfactory and therefore, her services
were terminated. This is an innocuous order, but the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had held that such an innocuous order does not carry any stigma.
19.The learned Single Judge had relied on three separate judgments
which were relied on even before us by the learned Counsel for the
respondent/Teacher. The first judgment was the one reported in 1996 (II)
CTC 577 in the case of M.Rukmani Devi -vs.- The Chief Educational
Officer and two others . In that case, the termination of service was set
aside, since notice was not given before the order of termination came to be
passed against a Teacher whose services had been regularised. This
judgment has no application to the facts of this case, since in this case, the
respondent/Teacher was a probationer and not a regular employee.
20.The second judgment was the one reported in 2002 (4) CTC 129 in
the case of R.V.Thevar Memorial Girls High School, Cholapuram -vs.-
11/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:14 pm )

2026:MHC:3705
W.A.(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
the Director of School Education and four others , again related to
promotion of a Teacher. In that case, again the concerned delinquent was
not terminated during probation. The Teacher's services had been
regularised.
21.It had been found that prior permission was not obtained before
passing an order terminating the service. In the instant case, the respondent
Teacher was only on probation and there could be no quarrel that if services
are not satisfactory during the period of probation, the services could be
terminated.
22.The third judgment was the one reported in 2003 (2) CTC 175 in
the case of Secretary, School of Committee, Thiruvalluvar Higher
Secondary Secondary -vs.- the Government of Tamil Nadu and others ,
again relating to charges issued to a delinquent, who had been appointed in
1978 and charge memorandum was issued in the year 1984 after six years
on various grounds. Naturally, the procedure under law will have to be
followed. Again, the facts are distinguishable.
12/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:14 pm )

2026:MHC:3705
W.A.(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
23.In the instant case, as indicated above, the respondent/Teacher was
only a probationer and once services are found unsatisfactory, the services
can be terminated. It does not create any stigma on the respondent. We
hold that the learned Single Judge has misdirected himself between the issue
of termination of a probationer and termination of a regular employee,
wherein, the procedure as contemplated under law, ie., issuance of show
cause notice, examination of explanation, framing of charges, issuance of
charge memo, again examination of statement of defence, enquiry to be
conducted by granting adequate opportunity and thereafter, orders to be
passed, are required to be followed.
24.In the instant case, the services of the respondent was terminated
during the period of probation before completion of two years and before
declaration of probation. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
referred supra , by the learned Counsel for the appellant directly applies to
the case on hand.
25.We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that all the three appeals
have to be allowed and they are accordingly allowed. The orders of the
13/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:14 pm )

2026:MHC:3705
W.A.(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
learned Single Judge which are under challenge, in W.P.(MD)Nos.14030
and 14031 of 2021 and 17027 of 2021 are set aside. We uphold the order of
termination of service of the respondent/Teacher.
26.In the result, the Writ Appeals are allowed and W.P.(MD)Nos.
14030 and 14031 of 2021 are allowed and W.P.(MD)No.17027 of 2021 is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
[C.V.K., J.] & [R.S.V., J.]
09.09.2026
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
cmr
To
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
14/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:14 pm )

2026:MHC:3705
W.A.(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
R.SAKTHIVEL. J.
cmr
Judgment made in
W.A(MD)Nos.3252 to 3254 of 2025
09.09.2026
15/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:14 pm )