IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.02.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P. No. 31896 of 2019 and W.M.P. Nos. 32151 and 32152 of 2019 T.Jagadeeshbabu … Petitioner -vs-

1. The Director of School Education College Road, Chennai-6.

2. The Chief Educational Officer Presidency Girls Higher Secondary School Campus Egmore, Chennai-8.

3. The District Educational Officer North Chennai Government Girls Higher Secondary School Campus Sidco Nagar, Villivakkam Chennai-49.

4. The Secretary and Correspondent The M.P.U.Higher Secondary School No.103, Audiappa Naickan Street Sowcarpet, Chennai-79.

5. P.Sekar ... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent vide Ref.No.MPU/TJB pg(His) De promotion 1365/11/2019 dated 09.11.2019 and quash the same and directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as P.G. Assistant (History) in the fourth respondent school, w.e.f.24.06.2019, with all consequential monetary benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari, GA (RR1 to 3)

Mr.S.Neduchezhiyan (R4)

Mr.P.Godson Swaminathan for M/s.Isaac Chambers (R5)

O R D E R

Heard Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari, learned Government Advocate for the first to third respondents, Mr.S.Neduchezhiyan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and Mr.P.Godson Swaminathan, learned counsel for the fifth respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent dated 09.11.2019 in Ref.No.MPU/TJB pg(His) De promotion 1365/11/2019 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner who has been working as P.G. Assistant (History) in the fourth respondent school, w.e.f.

24.06.2019, with all consequential monetary benefits.

3. The petitioner, who has been working as B.T. Assistant (History) in the fourth respondent school from 10.06.1996, has been promoted to the post of P.T. Assistant (History) on 24.06.2019 in the fourth respondent school.

4. The fourth respondent has sent a proposal to the third respondent for approval. The third respondent has returned the approval stating that in the interest of the students, preference can be given to persons, who have studied History in all the stages of their graduations and the persons, who are well versed in Tamil. It appears from the proceedings of the third respondent dated 17.07.2019 that the fifth respondent, who is junior to the petitioner, has sent a representation to the third respondent stating that he has studied both the undergraduate degree and post undergraduate degree courses in Tamil medium by having History as Major. Despite the third respondent has returned the proposal, the second respondent has recommended the third respondent to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner by stating that the appointment was proper and the petitioner has got all the required qualification to hold the post of P.G. Assistant (History). Unmindful of the letter of the second respondent, on 24.10.2019 the fourth respondent has called the petitioner to appear for writing competitive examination with the fifth respondent in order to select who is a better person for P.G. Assistant (History). But the petitioner ignored the same and did not participate in the above process. Hence, the proceedings has been issued by the fourth respondent on 09.11.2019 stating that the fifth respondent has been selected to the post of P.G. Assistant (History) and the promotion given to the petitioner on 24.06.2019 is cancelled.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the petitioner has studied his school education