Sri Gopalakrishna Higher Sec vs The Joint Director of School

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 25.08.2026
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)No.14 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.72 of 2025
Sri Gopalakrishna Higher Secondary School,
Represented by its Secretary-cum-Correspondent,
E.M.G.S.Indrani,
W/o.E.M.G.Soundarajan,
Sirudur 625 014,
Madurai District. ... Appellant
vs
1.The Joint Director of School Education,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Chief Education Officer,
Secondary Education,
Tallakulam, Madurai District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Secondary Education,
Melur 625 016,
Madurai District
4.V.Ramakrishnan ...Respondents
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court
in W.P.(MD)No.10959 of 2024, dated 19.12.2024.
For Appellant : Mr.Srinath Sridevan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Sujai Krishna
For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Kannan
Special Government Pleader
For R4 :Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
*
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. )
The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10959 of 2024, aggrieved by the
order, dated 19.12.2024 of the learned Single Judge, by which order, the
Writ Petition was dismissed, is the appellant herein.
2.The said Writ Petition had been filed in the nature of a Certiorari
seeking records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent/Joint
Director of School Education (Secondary Education), dated 27.03.2024 and
to quash the same.
2/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
3. The fourth respondent was working as a Drawing Teacher in the
appellant School and was placed under suspension on 27.11.2017 on the
ground that he had wrongly conducted himself with the members of the
School Committee. In this connection, a complaint was also lodged before
the Thallakulam Police Station and an FIR in Cr.No.343 of 2018 for the
offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341 and 506(i) of IPC had been
registered against the fourth respondent. Disciplinary proceedings had also
been initiated. An Enquiry Officer was also appointed and the fourth
respondent was dismissed from service on 11.06.2018. Thereafter, the
appellant had forwarded the proposal to the authorities to approve the order
of dismissal. Since no order was passed, the appellant had filed a Writ
Petition in W.P.(MD)No.5769 of 2019 in the nature of a Mandamus seeking
direction to pass orders on the said proposal.
4.By an order, dated 12.03.2019, a learned Single Judge had directed
that order should be passed within a period of six weeks. However, till the
date of filing of the Writ Petition, no order has been passed. It had been
contended that even before approving the order of dismissal, the suspension
3/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
order earlier passed against the fourth respondent was cancelled by the
appellant by order, dated 21.04.2018 and the fourth respondent also joined
duty. He was then issued with a second charge memo on 13.07.2018
alleging willful unauthorized absent, despite cancellation of suspension
order.
5.The fourth respondent then filed a Writ Petition before this Court in
W.P.(MD)No.17694 of 2018 seeking a direction to join duty and to be paid
full salary with monetary benefits. The said Writ Petition was disposed of
on a statement made on behalf of the appellant that the fourth respondent
can join duty and that the requisite salary would be paid from the date of
joining the duty. The fourth respondent joined duty on 10.08.2018. He was
again suspended on 16.02.2019 owing to the pendency of the second charge
memo. Thereafter, again on 21.03.2020, the said suspension order was
cancelled and he was directed to join duty. The fourth respondent joined
duty on 24.03.2020.
6.Thereafter, the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, had passed an
order, dated 25.08.2020, directing redeployment of the fourth respondent to
4/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
a different School holding that he was surplus in the appellant School in
accordance with the staff fixation for the academic year 2019-20. The fourth
respondent also joined another School. He then gave a representation to
the appellant to disburse salary for the period from 18.06.2019 to
24.03.2020. That representation was rejected by the appellant by order,
dated 11.05.2022. Challenging that order, the fourth respondent filed a Writ
Petition in W.P.(MD)No.7142 of 2020 seeking salary for the period during
which he was placed under suspension. That Writ Petition was disposed of
permitting the fourth respondent to file an appeal before the first
respondent/the Joint Director of School Education under Section 23(b) of
the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation), Act 1973. A
direction was also given to pass appropriate orders within a period of six
weeks from the date of filing of the appeal after granting opportunity of
hearing to both the fourth respondent and the appellant.
7.In accordance with the said direction, the fourth respondent filed an
appeal before the first respondent on 08.04.2023. The first respondent
issued a communication to the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, to
inform both the appellant and the fourth respondent to appear for personal
5/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
hearing on 10.10.2023. On 10.10.2023, the appellant appeared but the
fourth respondent did not appear. The appellant presented their explanation.
On 11.03.2024, the first respondent had addressed a communication to the
Chief Educational Officer, Madurai seeking various particulars and those
particular were in turn sought from the appellant. The appellant submitted
their explanation on 15.03.2024. On the basis of the said reply, the Chief
Educational Officer, Madurai, addressed a communication to the first
respondent on 18.03.2024 along with their opinion. Another opportunity of
a personal hearing was granted to the fourth respondent on 27.03.2024
through video conferencing. Thereafter, an order was passed by the first
respondent on 27.03.2024 which was impugned in the Writ Petition.
8.By the said order, the first respondent had directed that salary
should be paid to the fourth respondent by the appellant on the ground that
the appellant had placed the fourth respondent under suspension from
February 2019 onwards for more than 1½ years without taking any further
action. It had been stated that the appellant had not addressed any
communication calling upon the fourth respondent to join duty and that the
period between 18.02.2019 and 23.03.2020 cannot be considered as
6/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
unauthorised absent. The appellant was directed to pay salary for the said
period. That particular order was challenged in the Writ Petition.
9.The learned Single Judge had observed the contentions raised on
behalf of the appellant that there was no enquiry conducted on 10.10.2023
and even if an enquiry was conducted, it was by a different officer and
subsequently, the fourth respondent was afforded an opportunity of being
heard on 27.03.2024 by yet another officer. It had been stated that the report
of the Chief Educational Officer, dated 18.03.2024 had not been forwarded
to the appellant and this constituted violation of principles of natural justice.
It had been stated that the appellant had requested the fourth respondent to
join duty, but he had deliberately avoided joining duty. It had therefore been
contended that the appellant cannot be made liable to pay salary to the
fourth respondent.
10.It had been further contended that under Section 23(b) of the
Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, suspension
cannot be in force for more than two months and can be extended only for a
further period of two months and it had been therefore, argued that after the
7/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
expiry of four months, the fourth respondent should have joined duty. It
had therefore been contended that the appellant being an educational
institution based on charity cannot be saddled with liability to pay salary for
a period of more than one year to the fourth respondent, who had not
worked during the said period. It had been stated that the fourth respondent
was also redeployed to another School. It had been contended that the
matter may be remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration.
11.The learned Single Judge had also observed the arguments
advanced on behalf of the respondents, particularly, the first respondent that
the appeal under Section 23(b) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private
Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, is summary in nature and therefore, non
granting of personal hearing would not vitiate the order. It had been further
pointed out that the appellant had appeared for enquiry on 10.10.2023 and
had also submitted their written explanation. The fourth respondent was not
present, but he had been granted an opportunity of hearing through video
conferencing on 27.03.2024. It had been contended that the appellant had
not called upon the fourth respondent to join duty and had placed him under
suspension for well over one year and that therefore, that particular period
8/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
of suspension cannot be treated as deliberate absence from duty and that
necessary salary should be paid to him. The report of the Chief Educational
Officer, Madurai that the appellant had recalled the order of suspension,
dated 16.02.2019, was also considered.
12.The learned Single Judge also examined the arguments advanced
on behalf of the fourth respondent that the suspension order was based on a
charge memo and not on the basis of unauthorised absence. There had been
no communication addressed by the appellant calling upon the fourth
respondent to join duty after the order of suspension dated 18.02.2019. The
communication had been addressed only on 21.03.2020 and immediately,
thereafter, the fourth respondent had joined duty on 24.03.2020. It had been
stated that the fourth respondent was not in a position to join duty, since the
order of suspension had not been revoked. It had also been stated that the
post of Drawing Teacher had not been surrendered by the appellant, but had
been declared as surplus by the Chief Educational Officer and therefore, he
had been redeployed to another School.
9/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
13.Having noted the arguments, the learned Single Judge had
examined the issue whether the matter has to be decided on its own merits
or had to be remitted back to the first respondent for alleged violation of
principles of natural justice. It was noted that the fourth respondent had
been issued with a second charge memo on 13.07.2018 and when the fourth
respondent filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.17694 of 2018 alleging
that he was not permitted to join duty, the appellant submitted that they
were willing to allow the fourth respondent to join duty and subsequently,
the Writ Petition had been disposed of. The fourth respondent also joined
duty on 10.08.2018. He was again placed under suspension on 16.02.2019
on the basis of second charge memo which had been issued on 13.07.2018.
It was, therefore, observed that the order of suspension, dated 16.02.2019,
was never recalled till 21.03.2020.
14.The contention that the suspension should automatically be
revoked on expiry of two months and can be extended for a period of two
months and that the fourth respondent should have joined duty on expiry of
four months was rejected by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single
Judge observed that the first respondent was not an original authority but an
10/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
appellate authority under Section 23(b) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised
Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and that strict compliance of
principles of natural justice was not warranted. However, it was further
observed that both the appellant and the fourth respondent had been given
opportunity of being heard and the appellant had also submitted their
written submission. It was held that the fourth respondent cannot be stated
to have been unauthorisedly absent. The contention that appropriate
opportunity was not granted was rejected. It had therefore been held that
remitting the matter back to the first respondent would only be an exercise
in futility and therefore, the order of the first respondent was upheld and the
Writ Petition was dismissed. Challenging this order, the present appeal had
been filed.
15.We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and
perused the material records.
16.The appellant, Sri Gopalakrishna Higher Secondary School, an
aided School, had filed the Writ Petition in the nature of a Certiorari seeking
records relating to proceedings of the first respondent/Joint Director of
11/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
School Education (Secondary Education), dated 27.03.2024. By that
particular proceedings, the first respondent directed the appellant to pay
salary to the fourth respondent, V.Ramakrishnan during the period of
suspension between 18.06.2019 and 24.03.2020.
17.The background facts are that the fourth respondent, who was
working as a Drawing Teacher in the appellant School, had been initially
placed under suspension on 27.11.2017 on the ground that he had abused
various members of the School Committee. A complaint was also lodged in
Thallakulam Police Station and an FIR in Cr.No.343 of 2018 for offences
punishable under Sections 294(b), 341 and 506(i) of IPC had been
registered against the fourth respondent. Disciplinary proceedings were
also initiated. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and on the basis of his
report, the fourth respondent was dismissed from service on 11.06.2018.
The appellant sent a proposal to the first respondent to approve the order of
dismissal, but since the official respondents did not pass any order, the
appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.5769 of 2019 in the nature of a Mandamus
seeking consideration of their proposal. A learned Single Judge of this
Court had issued a Mandamus, but it is stated that till the date of filing of
12/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
the Writ Petition, no order has been passed approving the order of dismissal.
18.The appellant had also addressed a communication to the fourth
respondent on 21.04.2018, cancelling the order of suspension which had
been passed on 27.11.2017 and directing the fourth respondent to join duty.
The fourth respondent was then issued with a second charge memo on
13.07.2018 alleging that he had remained unauthorizedly absent in spite of
cancellation of the suspension order. The fourth respondent then filed W.P.
(MD)No.17694 of 2018 seeking a direction against the appellant to permit
him to join duty and to be paid full salary.
19.In the said Writ Petition, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner/appellant had submitted that they would permit the fourth
respondent to join duty and that he would also be paid salary from the date
of joining duty. On the basis of the said submission, the Writ Petition was
disposed of on 09.08.2018.
20.The fourth respondent joined duty on 10.08.2018.
13/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
21.The fourth respondent was again suspended on 16.02.2019 on the
basis of pendency of the the second charge memo, dated 13.07.2018. The
appellant addressed a communication to the fourth respondent on
21.03.2020 calling upon him to join duty. Accordingly, the fourth
respondent joined duty on 24.03.2020.
22.The Chief Education Officer at Madurai had then issued
proceedings redeploying the fourth respondent to a different School holding
that the fourth respondent was a surplus Teacher in the appellant School.
The fourth respondent also joined duty in another aided School. He then
gave a representation to the appellant seeking salary for the suspension
period from 18.06.2019 to 24.03.2020. This was rejected by the appellant by
order, dated 11.05.2022. Challenging the same, the fourth responder filed a
Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.7142 of 2020 seeking salary
for the suspension period.
23.The learned Single Judge of this Court had disposed of the said
Writ Petition granting permission to the fourth respondent to file an appeal
before the first respondent/the Joint Director of School Education under
14/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
Section 23(b) Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act,
1973. A direction was also issued that an order should be passed within a
period of six weeks from the date of filing of the appeal. It was also directed
that opportunity of hearing should be granted to both the appellant and the
fourth respondent.
24.In according with the said direction, the fourth respondent then
filed an appeal before the first respondent on 08.04.2023. The first
respondent addressed a communication to the Chief Educational Officer
primarily on 04.10.2023 directing to inform both the appellant and the
fourth respondent to appear for personal hearing on 10.10.2023. The
appellant appeared for the personal hearing on 10.10.2023 and also
submitted their written explanation. The first respondent sought further
particulars from the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, by communication,
dated 11.03.2024. Those particulars were further called for from the
appellant and the appellant also submitted their explanation to the Chief
Educational Officer, Madurai on 15.03.2024. On the basis of the said
communication, the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, addressed a
communication to the first respondent on 18.03.2024 also giving their
15/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
opinion. Thereafter, an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the
fourth respondent on 27.03.2024 through video conferencing. Finally, on
27.03.2024, the first respondent passed orders directing the appellant to pay
salary to the fourth respondent. This order had been put to challenge before
the learned Single Judge.
25.The learned Single Judge had observed that the claim of the
appellant that documents have not been furnished cannot be given credence,
since the documents were only a communication from the first
respondent/Chief Educational Officer calling for a report and in turn, the
Chief Educational Officer calling for report from the appellant and on
receipt of the explanation, forwarding the same to the first respondent in the
form of a tabular column. No further documents had been relied on. The
written submission given by the appellant was also relied on. It was also
observed by the learned Single Judge that the proceedings under Section
23(b) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act,
1973 were summary in nature and the first respondent had actually granted
opportunity to the appellant who had also availed the same by appearing in
person and submitting their explanation in writing which had also been
16/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
considered. It was also noted that the fourth respondent had been placed
under suspension from 18.06.2019 to 24.03.2020 and the fourth respondent
had not issued any communication after a period of two months from the
date of suspension by extending the period of suspension or calling upon
the fourth respondent to join duty and owing to that failure, the appellant
was liable to pay salary for the period of suspension. This order of the
learned Single Judge had been assailed in the present Writ Appeal.
26.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that the order
of the appellant placing the fourth respondent under suspension and the
order directing him to rejoin duty cannot be construed to be orders which
had been passed after adjudication of any particular issue. It was further
argued that therefore, it was the order passed by the first respondent
impugned in the Writ Petition on adjudication of the issues, should therefore
be considered as the order in original. The learned Senior Counsel
therefore contended that the first respondent was under compulsion to
follow the principles of natural justice including serving of all necessary
documents and granting opportunity of personal hearing.
17/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
27.This line of argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant cannot be considered favourably by us, since the fourth
respondent had approached the first respondent only under specific
direction of a learned Single Judge of this Court who passed order in W.P.
(MD)No.7142 of 2020. That particular Writ Petition had been filed by the
fourth respondent questioning an order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the
appellant herein by which order, the appellant had denied salary to the
fourth respondent for the period between 18.06.2019 and 24.03.2020. It
should be noted that in that Writ Petition, the appellant was represented by
Counsel. The learned Single Judge had held as follows in order dated
10.01.2023:
“3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that it would suffice, if this Court permits the petitioner to
prefer an appeal in terms of Section 23(b) of the Tamil Nadu
Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 before the
Appellate Authority within a reasonable time that may be
stipulated by this Court.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents has no serious objection for such an order being
passed by this Court.
5. Considering the limited request made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, this Court, without interfering the order
18/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
impugned in this Writ Petition, grants liberty to the petitioner to
ventilate his grievance by filing an appeal before the Appellate
Authority in terms of Section 23(b) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised
Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any
appeal is made, the Appellate Authority is directed to consider
and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks
thereafter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and the fifth respondent.”
28.Thus, it is seen that no protest had been raised by the appellant
when the learned Single Judge had specifically directed that an appeal has
to be preferred before the appellate authority under Section 23(b) of the
Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and also
when the learned Single Judge had further directed the appellate authority to
pass an order within a period of six weeks from the date when the appeal is
presented. The learned Single Judge had further directed that opportunity of
hearing should be granted to all parties. It is, thus, clear that the appellant
was conscious that it was an appeal being filed under Section 23(b) of the
Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and that
the said proceedings were certainly not proceedings in original, but
19/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
appellate proceedings challenging an order passed in the first instance.
29.There is yet another factor, which has to be pointed out, namely,
the earlier order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.17694 of 2018
which was again a Writ Petition filed by the fourth respondent in the nature
of a Mandamus seeking a direction against the appellant to permit him to
join duty and to be paid salary with monetary and attendant benefits with
effect from 28.01.2018. This was with respect to an earlier spell of
suspension. A learned Single Judge by order dated 09.08.2018 had noted the
submission made on behalf of the appellant herein, who had been impleaded
as the fifth respondent in that particular Writ Petition. It was ordered as
follows:
“4.The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted
that the fifth respondent / School is ready to allow the petitioner to
join duty and he is entitled to get salary from the date of joining
duty. He further submitted that fearing police action, the
petitioner is avoiding to join duty.
5.In view of the submission made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the
fifth respondent, the petitioner shall join duty in the fifth
respondent / school and on resuming duty, he is entitled to get
salary.
20/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
6.With regard to the absent period, the petitioner shall face
the enquiry on the pending proceedings and based on the out
come of such proceedings, his salary would be payable for such
period. 7.The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected W.M.P.is closed.”
30.It is, thus, seen that the appellant themselves had permitted the
fourth respondent to rejoin duty and had undertaken that they would pay
salary from the date when the fourth respondent so joined duty. With
respect to the salary for the period of suspension now under consideration
when the fourth respondent was actually placed under suspension from
16.02.2019 till 23.03.2020, the appellant had received grant-in-aid from the
Government for the first four months till 15.06.2019. Thereafter, they had
not paid salary for the subsequent period of suspension. They had also not
revoked the order of suspension. It is the contention of the appellant that it
is the Government which should pay salary has to be rejected, since the
records do not reveal that the appellant had issued any communication to
the fourth respondent revoking the order of suspension and calling upon
him to join duty.
21/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
31.The argument that the fourth respondent should have joined duty
on the expiry of four months has to be rejected, since as the employer, the
appellant has a duty to cancel the order of suspension and then permit the
fourth respondent to join duty. Having placed the fourth respondent under
suspension and have not issued any order revoking the suspension order and
calling upon the fourth respondent to join duty, it is only appropriate that
the appellant pays the salary for the period during which the fourth
respondent was under suspension.
32.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2004) 4 SCC
311 in the case of Mardia Chemicals Limited and others -vs.- Union of
India and others , which related to proceedings under Section 17 of the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act 2002 (SARFAESI Act). In the said judgment, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that proceedings under Section 17 of
SARFAESI Act are not appellate proceedings. In the instant case, the
proceedings under Section 23(b) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private
Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 are appellate proceedings and even
22/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
otherwise, the appellant had voluntarily submitted themselves to the appeal
proceedings by accepting the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.
(MD)No.7142 of 2020 extracted supra.
33.In view of these reasons, we do not agree with the contentions
raised on behalf of the appellant. The Writ Appeal stands dismissed. We
uphold the direction of the first respondent in their proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.31237/D2/E2/2023, dated 27.03.2024. We direct that there must
be compliance of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[C.V.K., J.] & [R.S.V., J.]
09.09.2026
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No (1/2)
NCC :Yes/No
cmr
23/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
To
1.The Joint Director of School Education,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Chief Education Officer,
Secondary Education,
Tallakulam, Madurai District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Secondary Education,
Melur 625 016,
Madurai District
24/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )

2026:MHC:3706
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2025
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
R.SAKTHIVEL. J.
cmr
Judgment made in
W.A(MD)No.14 of 2025
09.09.2026
(1/2)
25/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 09:16:11 pm )