R.SEENIVASAN vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 28.08.2026
Pronounced on 16.10.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJNISH PATHIYIL

WP(MD) Nos. 2535 OF 2017
AND
WMP(MD) NO. 2107 OF 2017
1. R. Seenivsan
2. M.R.Ganesh Babu
3. S.K. Sree Kumar
4. G.Jeyaram
5. K.S.Kubendran Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary,
State Of Tamilnadu,
Department Of School Education,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director Of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer
Tuticorin-628 002.
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
4. The District Educational Officer,
Kovilpatti-628 501
Tuticorin District.
5. The Correspondent,
St.Joseph Higher Secondary School,
Kovilpatti-628 501,
Tuticorin District. Respondent(s)
Prayer : Writ petiiton is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
quash the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent Director of School
Education in O.Mu.No.94986/D2/E2/2014 dated 02.01.2015 and the
consequential proceedings of the 4th respondent District Educational Officer
in O.Mu.No.6326/Aa1/2016 dated 25.11.2016, quash the same, and further
Direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioners as
Middle Grade Graduate Teachers either w.e.f. 14.06.2002 in regular scale of
pay as per G.O.Ms.No.79 (Secondary Education – U1) dated 14.06.2002 with
salary and all other consequential benefits.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.K.K.Ragatheesh Kumar
M/s.Isaac Chambers
For Respondent(s):
Mr.P. Pethu Rajesh,
Additional Government Pleader for Counter for R1 to R4
No appearance – R5
2/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a writ
of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order issued by the second
respondent dated 02.01.2015 and the consequential proceedings dated
25.11.2016 and to direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the
petitioner as middle grade graduate teachers with effect from 14.06.2002 in
terms of G.O. Ms. No. 79 dated 14.06.2002.
2. The facts that have been narrated in the affidavit filed in
support of the writ petition are that the petitioners are working as B.T.
Assistants in the fifth respondent school at Madurai. The fifth respondent
school is a minority educational institution. They were initially appointed as
secondary grade teachers against sanctioned vacancies. The fifth respondent
school being a minority educational institution, no prior permission of the
department is required to fill up the sanctioned vacancies. The details of each
of the petitioners are tabulated hereunder:
3/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
S. Date of Initial
Name Qualification Post Details of Vacancy
No. Appointment
BT
Assistant
(Maths)
Due to the promotion
of K.
Nagasubramanian
1. R. Seenivasan B.Sc., B.Ed.,
04.06.1998
BT
Assistant
(Maths)
M.R. Ganesh
2. B.Sc., B.Ed.,
Babu
Due to the retirement
04.06.1998
of T.K. Kuppusamy
BT
Assistant
(Maths)
S.K. Sree
3. B.Sc., B.Ed.,
Kumar
Due to the promotion
25.06.1998
of K.K. Jenarthanan
BT
Assistant
(Science)
M.Sc., M.Ed.,
4. G. Jeyaram
M.Phil
Due to the promotion
01.07.1998
of G.J. Raman
BT
Assistant
(Maths)
Due to the retirement
03.06.1999
of R. Amal Raj
5. K.S. Kubendran B.Sc., B.Ed.,
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the appointments
were all made against the vacancies of secondary grade teachers in the middle
school section with graduate qualifications, i.e., B.Ed. Thereafter, a proposal
was submitted for approval of the appointments and for disbursement of
grant-in-aid towards the salary. The District Educational Officer, who is the
th
4 respondent, had declined to approve the appointments in view of the order
issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.559 dated 11.07.1995 precluding
approval to the appointments of graduate teachers in secondary grade posts.
4/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
4. The said G.O. Ms. No. 559 dated 11.07.1995 was put to
challenge by several schools, in a batch of Writ Petition Nos. 6988 of 1998
etc., this Court, by order dated 19.05.1998, dismissed the writ petitions,
against which appeals were filed in W.A.Nos. 991 to 998 of 1998. The
Hon'ble Division Bench, by Order dated 29.06.2001, ( Secretary
Correspondent Uswathun Hasana Oriental (Arabic) Girls Higher Secondary
School v. State of Tamil Nadu , 2002 Writ LR 173), directed the State
Government to evolve a scheme and approve the Graduate Teachers
appointed in Secondary Grade posts up to 19.05.1998 i.e. the date on which
the learned Single Judge had passed the order.
5. Accordingly, and in compliance with the directions of the
Hon’ble Division Bench, the State Government evolved a scheme and 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 and 19.05.1998 should undergo a month’s training in Child
Psychology, and directed the educational authorities to approve the
5/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
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.
6. The said G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002 was put to
challenge before this Court in a batch of writ petitions. The Hon'ble Division
Bench upheld the aforesaid G.O. in a reported judgment in State of Tamil
Nadu v. Pallivasal Primary School, 2004 (2) LW 591 . The Hon'ble Division
Bench, however, 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. However,
as the appointment of petitioners were after the cut-off date fixed by this
Hon'ble Court, the Department had not approved the appointments against the
sanctioned posts, and the school retained the said posts.
7. In the meantime, sometime in the year 2002, the State
Government noted the fact that Secondary Grade teachers with Teacher
Training Certificates / Diplomas in Teacher Education were not qualified
6/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
enough to handle the advanced syllabi prescribed for the middle school
sections and hence, evolved a policy of appointing Graduate Teachers in
those posts. Vide G.O.Ms. No. 79 (Secondary Education – U1) dated
14.06.2002 the said prescription and orders were passed. The posts of
Secondary Grade teachers were decided to be upgraded into those of
Graduate Teachers in the regular scale of pay of Rs. 4500-125-7000/-.
8. In order to protect the interests of the existing Secondary
Grade teachers, the posts of secondary grade teachers were to be upgraded as
Graduate posts as and when those posts fell vacant, and thereafter, persons
with Graduate qualifications should alone be appointed. Such upgraded posts
came to be known as “Middle Grade Graduate Teachers”. In view of the said
G.O., Graduate Teachers with B.A. / B.Sc., + B.Ed. qualifications came to be
appointed as Middle Grade Graduate Teachers in the posts of Secondary
Grade Teachers as and when they fell vacant since 01.06.2002.
9. The petitioners herein have cited G.O. Ms. No. 79 dated
14.06.2002 and claimed that they are eligible to be appointed, and that their
appointments should have been approved. Hence, the fifth respondent
7/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
submitted a proposal to the fourth respondent to approve their appointments
in light of G.O. Ms. No. 79 dated 14.06.2002. However, the DEO, the fourth
respondent, insisted that the fifth respondent school should issue fresh
appointment orders in respect of the individuals appointed as Middle Grade
Graduate teachers. And at the instance of the fourth respondent, the fifth
respondent school issued fresh appointment orders on 21.10.2002 appointing
them as Middle Grade Graduate teachers vide G.O.Ms.No.79 and submitted
the proposal for the approval of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent,
however, did not pass any orders.
10. In the meantime, the Government issued two other G.Os,
namely G.O.Ms.No.100 (School Education - Budget) dated 27.06.2003 and
G.O.Ms.No.125 (School Education (X2) Dept.) dated 12.11.2003. The first
G.O. i.e., G.O.Ms.No.100, pertains to the appointment of Graduate Teachers
in Panchayat Union Schools, while the second G.O. pertains to private aided
schools. In the said G.Os, the Government introduced a new system of
payment namely, 'Consolidated Pay' for a certain period.
8/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
11. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.130, School
Education Department dated 27.09.2004, ratifying the appointments of
various Middle Grade Graduate Teachers appointed in the private schools in
violation of G.O.Ms.No.79.
12. The claim of the official respondents is that while appointing
Middle Grade Graduate teachers in the Secondary Grade vacancy vide G.O.
Ms. No. 79, the schools had to take prior permission. However, the school
contended that the appointments do not require prior permission and most of
the appointments were made without obtaining prior permission from the
concerned school authorities. However, the Government decided to approve
those appointments under consolidated pay of Rs.4,000/- per month, w.e.f.
01.06.2003.
13. It is the case of the petitioners that the circumstances that
were obtaining then, that is, the lack of enough graduate teachers, were the
reason for introducing these G.Os and for recruiting teachers on a large scale,
and also to pay them a consolidated pay.
9/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
14. However, the conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.79,
regarding prior permission do not apply to the petitioners, according to them,
for two reasons: firstly, that the fifth respondent is a minority educational
institution and there is no necessity to get prior permission; secondly, that the
petitioners were appointed against sanctioned vacancies much before the
issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 79, and thus would contend that prior permission is
not necessary.
15. The learned Additional Government Pleader would contend
that the petitioners, being degree-qualified teachers, were appointed against
vacancies in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, and that their appointments
could not be approved in view of G.O.Ms. No.559 dated 11.07.1995. The
validity of said G.O. was put to challenge in a batch of writ petitions and was
dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 19.05.1998 and the consequent writ
appeals were also dismissed by a Division Bench on 29.06.2001 (Secretary
Correspondent Uswathun Hasana Oriental (Arabic) Girls Higher
Secondary School v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2002 Writ L.R. 173), subject to the
concession that B.Ed. qualified teachers appointed prior to 19.05.1998 would
be regularized upon completion of one month's Child Psychology Training,
10/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
pursuant to which G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002, was issued. Since
petitioners 1 to 5 were appointed only on 04.06.1998, 04.06.1998,
25.06.1998, 01.07.1998 and 03.06.1998 respectively, i.e., after the cut-off
date, their appointments could not be approved under the said G.O.
16. He would further contend that G.O.Ms.No.79 dated
14.06.2002, which provides for the appointment of B.Ed. qualified teachers in
the place of Secondary Grade Teachers by classifying them as Middle Grade
Graduate Teachers, was issued in respect of Government schools and is not
applicable to aided schools. Hence, the said G.O. cannot be relied upon for
seeking approval of the petitioners’ appointments w.e.f. 14.06.2002.
17. Subsequently, the Government issued two G.O. namely,
G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 27.06.2003 in respect of Government schools and
G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 12.11.2003 in respect of aided schools, under which,
various categories of teacher posts were converted into Junior Grade Teacher
posts carrying consolidated pay. Accordingly, the appointments of the
petitioners were approved w.e.f. 01.06.2003 on consolidated pay and were
subsequently brought under the time scale of pay w.e.f. 01.06.2006. Hence,
11/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
the petitioners cannot claim approval of their appointments w.e.f. 14.06.2002
under G.O.Ms.No.79, which is applicable only to Government schools.
18. It was further submitted that, the Government issued
G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 04.07.2008, wherein he Chief Educational Officer is
empowered to convert vacant Secondary Grade Teacher posts into subject-
wise B.T. Teacher posts, having regard to the requirement of the school and
the qualifications of the teachers. The said Government Order provides that
B.Ed.-qualified teachers appointed to teach Classes VI to VIII in subjects
such as English, Mathematics and Science shall be given preference against
the respective vacancies. It is further provided that, since Classes VI to X are
treated as a single unit subject-wise, vacant Secondary Grade Teacher posts
may be converted into graduate teacher posts according to the requirement of
the particular subject and even minority schools are required to obtain
permission for such subject-wise rotation and that the said requirement does
not amount to interference with the right of administration of the minority
institution.
12/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
19. It was therefore contended that as the petitioners were
appointed after the cut-off date i.e., 19.05.1988, their initial appointments
were irregular, and their claim can be traced only to G.O.Ms.No.125 dated
12.11.2003, under which their appointments were approved with effect from
01.06.2003. Furthermore, the petitioners cannot seek any benefit under
G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 14.06.2002, as it is applicable only to Government
schools and not to aided schools.
20. This Court has considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials
placed on record.
21. The petitioners were appointed between 04.06.1998 and
03.06.1999. It is seen from the materials placed before this Court that, as
early as in the year 2002, the School had submitted a proposal to the
competent authority seeking approval of the petitioners' appointments by
extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.79. The said proposal was not accepted.
Thus, the petitioners were aware, at the earliest, from the year 2002 that the
13/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
benefit claimed by them had not been extended to their appointments.
However, they did not challenge the said decision within a reasonable period.
22. Instead, after a considerable lapse of time, the petitioners
submitted a representation dated 31.07.2012, seeking extension of the benefit
allegedly granted to one Padma Sheela Rani, vide proceedings dated
22.11.2008, and to D.Lily, vide proceedings dated 29.10.2010. The said
representation came to be rejected by the Director vide proceedings dated
02.01.2015 on the ground that the benefit extended to the said persons was
pursuant to orders passed by this Court and, therefore, the same could not be
claimed as a matter of parity by the petitioners. The rejection was thereafter
reiterated by the District Educational Officer vide proceedings dated
25.11.2016, in response to the representation submitted by the School on
21.10.2016. Aggrieved by the aforesaid proceedings, the present writ petition
has been filed.
23. Eventhough the present writ petition was instituted in the
year 2017, shortly after the proceedings dated 25.11.2016, the question of
delay and laches cannot be examined merely with reference to the date of the
14/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
last rejection order. The subsequent representation and the order passed
thereon cannot be treated as giving rise to a fresh cause of action. The claim
of the petitioners has to be examined with reference to the original cause of
action, namely, the non-approval of their appointments and the rejection of
the proposal seeking such approval in the year 2002. The fact that the
petitioners approached this Court soon after the rejection of their subsequent
representation in 2016 would not, by itself, efface the prolonged period of
inaction from 2002 onwards.
24. In this context, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining , reported in
(2008) 10 SCC 115, assumes significance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that representations relating to matters which have become stale or are
barred by limitation can be rejected on that ground and that a representation,
or an order passed upon such representation, does not furnish a fresh cause of
action or revive a stale or dead claim. The fact that an authority subsequently
considers and rejects a representation cannot, therefore, be construed as
giving a fresh lease of life to a claim which had remained unchallenged for a
considerable period. The relevant portions of the said judgment is extracted
15/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
hereunder:
“ 7. 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 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.
8. 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 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 `acknowledgment of a jural
relationship' to give rise to a fresh cause of action. ”
25. The above principle is equally applicable to the present case.
The petitioners' claim had its genesis in their appointments made between
1998 and 1999 and, admittedly, the proposal seeking approval of such
16/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
appointments under G.O.Ms.No.79 had already been rejected in the year
2002. The petitioners did not assail the said rejection at that point of time.
The subsequent representations made in 2012 and 2016, therefore, cannot
have the effect of reviving the original claim or creating a fresh cause of
action. The proceedings dated 02.01.2015 and 25.11.2016 were only
consequential orders passed on the subsequent representations and cannot be
treated as fresh orders giving rise to an independent cause of action.
26. The reliance placed upon the proceedings issued in favour of
Padma Sheela Rani in the year 2008 and D.Lily in the year 2010 also does not
alter the position. Those proceedings were not orders granting a general or
automatic extension of the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.79 to all similarly
situated persons.
27. 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
17/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
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.”
28. In the present case, the petitioners did not challenge the
rejection of their claim in the year 2002. They remained silent for several
years and sought to rely upon the subsequent proceedings issued in favour of
other individuals in 2008 and 2010. Even thereafter, their representation was
made only on 31.07.2012, nearly a decade after the rejection of their claim.
The present proceedings of the year 2015 and 2016, and the Government
Orders issued in respect of other Middle Grade Graduate Teachers, do not
18/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
give them a fresh cause of action. The petitioners, having acquiesced for such
a long time, must be treated as fence-sitters and cannot be permitted to reopen
the matter.
29. The delay in the present case is not a mere technical delay.
The petitioners seek to enforce a right arising out of appointments made as far
back as in 1998-1999, despite the rejection of the proposal seeking approval
under G.O.Ms.No.79 in 2002. No satisfactory explanation has been offered
for the failure to challenge the said rejection within a reasonable period. The
subsequent representations do not erase the intervening period of inaction
and, applying the principles laid down in C. Jacob and Arvind Kumar
Srivastava (supra) , cannot revive a stale claim.
30. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the writ
petitioners, having approached this Court after an inordinate and unexplained
delay, are guilty of laches. The claim is, therefore, liable to be rejected on the
ground of delay and laches alone. In view of the same, it is not necessary for
this Court to examine the merits of the petitioners' claim for extension of the
benefit of G.O.Ms.No.79.
19/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
31. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.10.2026
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
KSA
20/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
TO
1. The Secretary,
State Of Tamilnadu,
Department Of School Education,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director Of School Education,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer
Tuticorin-628 002,
Tuticorin District.
4. The District Educational Officer,
Kovilpatti-628 501
Tuticorin District.
5. The Correspondent,
St.Joseph Higher Secondary School,
Kovilpatti-628 501,
Tuticorin District.
21/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
RAJNISH PATHIYIL, J.
KSA
Order in
WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
16.10.2026
22/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:07:15 pm )