F.KINGSLY PRABA, vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
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) No. 17286 of 2018
AND
WMP(MD) NO. 15224 OF 2018
F.Kingsly Praba 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, 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. Respondent(s)
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
Prayer : Writ Petiiton is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
4th respondent District Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the
petitioners as Middle Grade Graduate Teacher in the 5th respondent school
namely St.Josephs Higher Secondary School, Kovilpatti w.e.f.14.06.2002 in
regular scale of pay in terms of G.O.Ms.No.79 (Secondary Education-UI)
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.T. Cibi Chakraborthy,
Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4
No appearance – R5
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a writ
th
of mandamus directing the 4 respondent, District Educational Officer, to
approve the appointment of the petitioner as Middle Grade Graduate Teacher
th
in the 5 respondent school with effect from 14.06.2002 in regular scale of
pay in terms of G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 14.06.2002, with salary and all other
consequential benefits.
2/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
th
2. The petitioner is working as BT Assistant in the 5 respondent
th
school at Kovilpatti. The 5 respondent school is an aided minority
educational institution. The petitioner possesses M.Sc., and B.Ed., Degrees
and was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the middle school level in
th
the 5 respondent school with effect from 03.09.1998, against the post which
fell vacant on 01.06.1998 due to the retirement of the then incumbent,
Tmt.M.Soosaikani, on 31.05.1998.
3. Considering the advanced syllabi prescribed for Standards 6,
7, and 8 and also due to non availability of candidates with D.Ted.,
qualification, the Government as well as private schools used to appoint
higher qualified Graduate Teachers with B.Ed., Degrees in the Secondary
Grade posts in Middle School sections. The Educational Department used to
approve such appointments till 19.05.1998.
4. In the meantime, the Education Department declined to
approve such appointments in view of G.O.Ms. No. 559 (School Education)
dated 11.07.1995. In view of the same, the petitioner’s appointment was also
th
not approved by the 4 respondent, DEO.
3/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
5. 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 the appeals were filed in W.A.Nos. 991 to 998 of 1998. The
Hon'ble Division Bench, by Judgement dated 29.06.2001, in Secretary
Correspondent Uswathun Hasana Oriental (Arabic) Girls Higher
Secondary School v. State of Tamil Nadfu , reported in 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.
6. 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
4/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
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.
7. 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.
th
8. In terms of the above G.Os, the 4 respondent, District
Educational Officer, directed the petitioner to undergo a month’s Child
Psychology Training from 02.05.2003 to 31.05.2003 vide proceedings dated
5/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
23.04.2003. The petitioner attended one week’s training at the District
Institute of Teacher Education & Training (DIET), Vanaramutti, Tuticorin
District. Thereafter, she was not permitted to undergo the training for the
remaining period.
9. 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
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/-.
th
10. In light of the above G.O. the petitioner claimed that the 4
respondent, ought to have approved her appointment. However, the same was
not approved. Later, the Government announced that the consolidated pay
teachers would be placed under time scale of pay w.e.f. 01.06.2006 vide G. O.
6/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
Ms. No. 99 (School Education-Income Expenditure-2)) dated 27.06.2006.
Thereafter, the DEO approved her appointment as Middle Grade Graduate
Teacher w.e.f. 01.06.2006 vide proceedings dated 25.01.2007. However, the
petitioner’s earlier period of service from 03.09.1998 to 31.05.2006 was
neither approved nor counted for any service benefits.
11. Subsequently, the State Government vide G.O. Ms. No. 150
(School Education (P1) Department) dated 02.07.2007 directed 22 similarly
placed persons like the petitioner, who came to be recruited between
19.05.1998 till 29.06.2001, that is, the period till disposal of the Writ Appeals
relating to G.O. Ms. No. 559 (School Education) dated 11.07.1995, to
undergo one month’s training on Child Psychology, and further directed the
educational authorities to approve the appointment after completion of Child
Psychology training.
12. Claiming similar relief, the petitioner has sent various
representations on 15.09.2006, 02.03.2007, 06.09.2007, 12.02.2008,
05.08.2008, 11.02.2009, 04.01.2010, 18.10.2010, 03.03.2011, 12.10.2011 and
22.02.2012. As there was no response, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (MD)
7/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
No. 6037 of 2012 in this Hon'ble Court seeking for a writ of mandamus
directing the District Educational Officer to consider and pass orders on the
representation dated 22.02.2012. This Court vide its order dated 26.04.2012,
directed the 4th respondent, DEO, to consider and pass orders on the
representation.
13. Thereafter, the 4th respondent, DEO, passed an order vide
proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 1926/A1/2012 dated 06.02.2013 indicating that
approval could not be given from the date of appointment i.e., 03.09.1998 for
the reason that the petitioner had not undergone the one-month Child
Psychology training as contemplated under G.O. Ms. No. 155 (school
Education) dated 03.10.2002.
14. When similarly placed persons were permitted to undergo the
one-month Child Psychology training and their services were regularized vide
G.O. Ms. No. 150 dated 02.07.2007, the petitioner also sought permission
th
from the 4 respondent to undergo the said training and to regularize her
earlier service, at least for pension purposes. Accordingly, the petitioner
th
submitted further representations to the 4 respondent on 17.04.2013 and
8/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
03.08.2014, requesting him to reckon her service from 03.09.1998 to
th
31.05.2006 for pension purposes. However, the 4 respondent did not pass
any orders.
15. Hence, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition (MD). No.
6829 of 2015 before this Court seeking a direction to reckon her service from
03.09.1998 to 31.05.2006 for purpose of pensionary benefits. This Court
dismissed the Writ Petition vide order dated 27.04.2015 on the ground that
th
the petitioner have not challenged the proceedings of the 4 respondent dated
06.02.2013, however, granted liberty to make a fresh representation to the
respondent seeking permission to undergo Child Psychology training and
further directed the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner.
16. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation to the
th
4 respondent, seeking permission to undergo Child Psychology training. The
th
4 respondent, vide his proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 2485/A1/2015 dated
27.07.2015, rejected her request, stating that only the candidate appointed
before 19.05.1998 will be considered for the training.
9/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
17. As the respondents had not approved the petitioner’s
appointment from the initial date on the ground that she possessed higher
qualification and did not fall within the cut-off date for Child Psychology
th
Training, the petitioner submitted representations to the 4 respondent on
18.09.2016 and 07.03.2017, seeking approval of her appointment w.e.f.
th
14.06.2002 in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 79 dated 14.06.2002. The 4 respondent,
vide proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 1065/A1/2017 dated -.03.2017, rejected the
request, stating that it had already been rejected vide proceedings dated
27.07.2015.
th
18. The petitioner submitted a further representation to the 4
respondent, on 08.06.2017, stating that the proceedings dated 27.07.2015
related to her earlier request for approval from the date of her initial
appointment after undergoing Child Psychology Training and did not relate to
her present request for approval w.e.f. 14.06.2002 in terms of G.O. Ms. No.
79 dated 14.06.2002. She therefore requested the DEO to approve her
appointment in terms of the said G.O. However, there was no response.
10/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
19. The petitioner states that the benefits under G.O. Ms. No. 79
dated 14.06.2002 were extended to several similarly placed persons. It is her
case that, despite her repeated representations, her appointment was not
approved w.e.f. 14.06.2002, that is from the date of issuance of G.O. Ms. No.
79, resulting in denial of salary and affecting her coverage under the old
pension scheme viz., Teachers Provident Fund. Hence, the petitioner seeks
approval of her appointment w.e.f. 14.06.2002 in terms of the said G.O.
th
20. The 5 respondent school, supporting the case of the
petitioner, would contend that even though initially the petitioner’s
appointment was not approved as she had higher qualification, after issuance
of G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 14.06.2002, the Department could not take such a
stand, inasmuch as the Government itself had taken a decision to appoint
candidates with graduate qualifications as Middle Grade Graduate Teachers in
the Middle School sections. As per the said G.O., the petitioner became fully
qualified for getting her appointment approved. Hence, the petitioner is
entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition.
11/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
th
21. The Learned Counsel for the 4 respondent adverting to the
Counter Affidavit dated 06.12.2021 would contend that the appointment of
the petitioner, who is a B.Ed. qualified teacher without the requisite
Secondary Grade Teacher's qualification, viz., D.T.Ed., against a Secondary
Grade Teacher vacancy, cannot be approved in view of G.O.Ms.No.559 dated
11.07.1995. The validity of the said G.O. has been upheld by Division Bench
of this Court, 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. The same was given effect to vide
G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002. It was contented that as the petitioner was
appointed only on 03.09.1998, i.e., after the cut-off date of 19.05.1998, she
would not fall within the protected category of teachers covered by the said
concession and the consequent G.O.Ms.No.155 , and is therefore not entitled
to approval of her appointment.
22. It was further contended that though the petitioner was
erroneously sent for Child Psychology Training, she was recalled within one
week and did not complete the mandatory one-month training. It was
submitted that, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002, salary is
12/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
payable to such teachers only from the date of completion of the said training,
and that B.Ed. qualified teachers appointed against Secondary Grade Teacher
vacancies are, in any event, not entitled to salary for the period from
11.07.1995 to 19.05.1998. It was therefore contended that the petitioner,
having neither been appointed prior to the cut-off date nor having completed
the training, is not entitled to any salary from the date of her initial
appointment.
23. The learned counsel would further contend that the
petitioner's claim that she was appointed as Middle Grade Graduate Teacher
with effect from 14.06.2002, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 14.06.2002, is
factually incorrect, inasmuch as, on the said date, the petitioner was still
undergoing Child Psychology Training, which she had not completed, and
had at no point been appointed as, or was in possession of the post of, Middle
Grade Graduate Teacher.
th
24. It was further contended by the 4 respondent that the
petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(MD) No.6037 of 2012 seeking consideration
of her representation dated 22.02.2012 for grant of salary. This Court, by
13/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
order dated 26.04.2012, directed the authorities to consider the representation
on merits. The District Educational Officer rejected the request by order dated
06.02.2013, on the ground that the petitioner had not completed the one-
month Child Psychology Training.
25. The petitioner had also filed W.P.(MD)No.6829 of 2016 to
reckon her service from 03.09.1998 to 31.05.2006 for pension purposes. This
Court while dismissing the petition, granted liberty to make a fresh
th
representation, leaving it to the respondents to consider independently. The 4
respondent, District Educational Officer rejected the same by order dated
27.07.2015, on the ground that the petitioner had not completed the Child
Psychology Training and was not appointed before the cut-off date. A further
representation was rejected, and the order was confirmed, by the District
Educational Officer's order dated 20.04.2017.
26. It was therefore contended that the orders dated 06.02.2013,
27.07.2015 and 20.04.2017, having attained finality without further
challenge, preclude the petitioner from re-agitating the same issue in the
present proceedings.
14/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
27. On the aforesaid narrative set out in the affidavit filed by the
petitioner and the counter affidavits, as well as the oral arguments advanced
by the learned counsel on either side, the issue that arises for consideration is
whether the petitioner would be entitled to approval of her appointment as
Middle Grade Graduate Teacher with effect from 14.06.2002 in the regular
scale of pay in terms of G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 14.06.2002, with salary and all
other consequential benefits.
28. It is the case of the petitioner that she was initially appointed
as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 5th respondent school with effect from
03.09.1998, against a vacancy which had arisen on 01.06.1998 on account of
the retirement of the then incumbent. The petitioner possessed M.Sc. and
B.Ed. qualifications. Her appointment, however, was not approved by the
educational authorities in view of G.O.Ms.No.559, School Education
Department, dated 11.07.1995, which prohibited the appointment of B.Ed.
qualified persons against Secondary Grade Teacher vacancies.
29. The validity of G.O.Ms.No.559 was upheld by this Court
and, in the appeals arising therefrom, the Division Bench in Secretary and
15/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
Correspondent, Uswathun Hasana Oriental (Arabic) Girls Higher
Secondary School v. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in 2002 WLR 173 ,
directed the Government to evolve a scheme for approval of the appointments
of Graduate Teachers made against Secondary Grade posts up to 19.05.1998.
Pursuant thereto, G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education (D2) Department, dated
03.10.2002, was issued, providing, inter alia, for approval from the date of
completion of one month's Child Psychology Training. The Division Bench in
State of Tamil Nadu v. Pallivasal Primary School , reported in 2004 (2) LW
591 , upheld G.O.Ms.No.155 and directed that the service rendered prior to
completion of the Child Psychology Training could be reckoned for
pensionary purposes.
30. It is in this background that G.O.Ms.No.79, School Education
(U1) Department, dated 14.06.2002, has to be understood. The Government,
taking note of the revised and advanced syllabus prescribed for Standards VI
to VIII and the difficulty faced by Secondary Grade Teachers in handling the
said syllabus, introduced a policy for deployment of Graduate Teachers in the
middle school section. The said G.O. contemplated that, when a Secondary
16/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
Grade Teacher post fell vacant, such post was to be upgraded as a Middle
Grade Graduate Teacher post and filled by a B.Ed. qualified Graduate Teacher
in the prescribed scale of pay with the applicable advance increment. Thus,
G.O.Ms.No.79 dealt with the manner in which a vacant Secondary Grade
Teacher post was thereafter to be filled and it did not provide for the
retrospective appointment or approval of persons already working as
Secondary Grade Teachers as Middle Grade Graduate Teachers.
31. This distinction assumes significance in the present case. The
petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 03.09.1998. The
vacancy against which she was appointed had admittedly arisen on
01.06.1998, on the retirement of the then incumbent on 31.05.1998. The
petitioner has not placed before this Court any material to establish that,
subsequent to 14.06.2002, a fresh vacancy in the post of Secondary Grade
Teacher arose in the fifth respondent school and that such vacancy was
thereafter upgraded and filled in terms of G.O.Ms.No.79.
32. The petitioner seeks to treat 14.06.2002, i.e. the date on
which G.O.Ms.No.79 was issued, as the date from which her existing
17/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
appointment should be deemed to have been converted into that of a Middle
Grade Graduate Teacher. Such an interpretation, in the considered opinion of
this Court, cannot be accepted. G.O.Ms.No.79 does not provide for any
automatic conversion of an existing appointment. The true import of the said
G.O. is that when a Secondary Grade Teacher post falls vacant, the said post
is to be upgraded as a Middle Grade Graduate Teacher post and thereafter
filled by a suitably qualified Graduate Teacher.
33. In the present case, there is no material to establish that the
Secondary Grade Teacher post against which the petitioner was appointed on
03.09.1998 fell vacant on or after 14.06.2002 and was consequently upgraded
under G.O.Ms.No.79. On the contrary, the material on record establishes that
the relevant vacancy had arisen on 01.06.1998 itself and that the petitioner
came to be appointed against the said vacancy on 03.09.1998. The petitioner's
claim for treating her appointment as that of a Middle Grade Graduate
Teacher with effect from 14.06.2002 is therefore misconceived.
34. The subsequent G.O.Ms.No.150, School Education (P1)
Department, dated 02.07.2007, also does not advance the petitioner’s case.
18/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
The said Government Order dealt with persons similarly placed who fell
within the period identified therein and required them to undergo one month’s
Child Psychology Training before approval of their appointments. It is,
however, relevant to note that the petitioner had earlier made representations
seeking similar benefits for the period from 1998 to 2002, which were
rejected by orders dated 06.02.2013, 27.07.2015 and 20.04.2017. The
petitioner, having suffered the said orders and not challenged them, cannot re-
agitate the same issue in the present proceedings. The said orders have
attained finality.
35. The contention that the petitioner should nevertheless be
granted approval from 14.06.2002 merely because G.O.Ms.No.79 was issued
on that date would, in effect, confer upon her a benefit which the Government
Order itself does not contemplate. Therefore, the relief sought by the
petitioner for approval with effect from 14.06.2002, with salary and all
consequential benefits, cannot be granted.
36. However, keeping in view that the petitioner was
subsequently granted approval as Middle Grade Graduate Teacher with effect
19/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
from 01.06.2006, while her service from 03.09.1998 to 31.05.2006 was not
counted for any service benefit, and in view of the decision in State of Tamil
Nadu v. Pallivasal Primary School , 2004 (2) LW 591, wherein it was held
that though approval could be granted only from the date of completion of the
prescribed Child Psychology Training, the service rendered prior thereto
would nevertheless be counted for pension purposes, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the relief can be moulded to the limited extent of
reckoning her service rendered from 03.09.1998 to 31.05.2006 for the
purpose of pensionary benefits.
37. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the
prayer seeking approval of the petitioner's appointment as Middle Grade
Graduate Teacher with effect from 14.06.2002, with salary and all
consequential benefits, is liable to be rejected. At the same time, by moulding
the relief and having regard to the principle laid down by the Division Bench
in Pallivasal Primary School (supra) , the period of service rendered by the
petitioner from 03.09.1998 to 31.05.2006 shall be reckoned only for
pensionary purposes, subject to the petitioner otherwise satisfying the
requirements of the applicable pension rules.
20/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
38. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above
direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.10.2026
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
KSA
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 05:59:39 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
RAJNISH PATHIYIL, J.
KSA
Order in
WP(MD) NO. 17286 of 2018
16.10.2026
22/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )