IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 25.07.2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 30.07.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN.

W.P.No.8490 of 2022 E.Usha .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner of School Education DPI Campus, College Road Chennai – 600 006.

2. The Director of School Education DPI Campus, College Road Chennai – 600 006.

3. The Chief Educational Officer Chief Education Office Presidency School Campus Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

4. The District Educational Officer Chennai Central, Saidapet Chennai – 15.

5. The Correspondent and Secretary Kesari Higher Secondary School Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

6. K.S.V.Prasad .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records in pursuant to the impugned order issued by the fifth respondents in proceedings no 'nil' dated 10.01.2022 and quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full monetary and consequential service benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vairava Subramanian For Respondents : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4 Mr.S.Ravi for R5 Mr.K.S.V.Prasad Party-in-Person (R6)

ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the fifth respondent, thereby removing the petitioner from service.

2.1. The petitioner was appointed as a B.T. Assistant in Science in the fifth respondent School. The fifth respondent School is a Linguistic Minority Educational Institution and is receiving grant in aid from the Government as per the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools Recognition and Payment of Grant Rules, 1977.

2.2. The petitioner's appointment was approved by the authorities from the date of her initial appointment, i.e., 28.06.2006. While being so, she also completed her Post Graduation and requested the then Head Mistress of the fifth respondent School to send necessary proposal to the third respondent for sanction of incentive increment. But, no proposal was sent for grant of incentive increment.

The petitioner also alleges ill treatment by the School Management.

2.3. As per the cadre strength of the students, only two posts of B.T. Assistants in Science were sanctioned for the fifth respondent School, but, in addition to the sanctioned strength, one Leelavathi Vadakattu, who being the friend of the fifth respondent, was appointed as B.T. Assistant in Science. It is an unapproved post and her appointment is also not approved so far. Therefore, in order to accommodate the said Leelavathi Vadakattu, the petitioner was targeted and serious allegations were levelled against the petitioner. In pursuance to which, the petitioner was placed under suspension on

23.04.2018.

2.4. The said suspension order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.10846 of 2018 and an order on stay of the suspension order was obtained. Thereafter, on the assurance given by the fifth respondent that the petitioner would be reinstated into service, by recording the same, this Court disposed the said writ petition.

2.5. After reinstating the petitioner into service, the petitioner alleges that the Lab Assistant took a videograph of the petitioner, while the petitioner was conducting practical class for the IX standard students in the laboratory without the permission of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Educational Authorities, as well as the sixth respondent. Without enquiring the said complaint, the sixth respondent issued notice to the petitioner, alleging that there are complaints against the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to submit her explanations in respect of the allegations levelled against her.

2.6. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry was conducted. However, the petitioner alleges non-serving of the documents, which were annexed to the charges and as such, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition befo