BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 13/10/2025 Pronounced on : 28/11/2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU W.P.(MD).No.25120 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD).No.19709 of 2025 D.Esther Sukirthabai ...Petitioner -Vs-

1. The Director of Elementary School Education DPI Compound College Road Chennai.

2. The Chief Educational Officer Thirunelveli District Thirunelveli.

3. The District Educational Officer(Elementary)

Thirunelveli District Thirunelveli.

4. The Block Educational Officer Tirunelveli City Range Tirunelveli District.

5. The Correspondent STC Branch Upper Clapton Middle School Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli District. ...Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.3679/B5/2023 dated 04.07.2025 and quash the same is illegal and consequently direct the respondents to relive the petitioner from the post of BT Assistant at 5th respondent school and disburse arrears of Salary along with terminal benefits forthwith w.e.f 04.06.2019 and pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice..

For petitioner : M/s.S.Chella Pandian For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.3679/B5/2023 dated 04.07.2025 and seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to relieve the petitioner from the post of BT Assistant at 5^th respondent school and disburse the arrears of salary along with terminal benefits forthwith w.e.f 04.06.2019.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had been appointed as B.T. Assistant (History) on 03.06.2019 in the fifth respondent institution. The proposal submitted by the fifth respondent institution was pending, and hence, the management had filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.22841 of 2016, seeking direction to the respondents therein to approve the appointment which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. As the order was not implemented, a contempt petition was also filed and in compliance with the orders in the contempt proceedings, approval was granted.

3. He would further submit that the department had also initiated an intra Court Appeal against the order of the learned single judge in W.A. (MD).No.2621 of 2024. He would submit that the issue of Joint/Corporate Management surplus was a contention that was sought to be implemented by a Division Bench of this Court in WA.(MD).No.76 of 2019 etc., batch cases in its order dated 31.03.2021. Thereafter, a Division Bench in a further intra court appeal in W.A.(MD).No.1557 of 2023, had held that the judgment made in WA(MD).No.76 of 2019 etc., batch can only be held to be prospective and the same cannot be applied to the cases where appointments have been made prior to the date of the judgment. However, in the intra Court appeal preferred by the department, a contrary view had been taken by another Bench in its order dated 30.04.2025, holding that the said judgment would have to be applied retrospectively. He would further submit that the subsequent Bench, had not taken into consideration the reasoning attributed by the earlier Division Bench in holding the judgment in W.A.(MD).No.76 of 2019 etc., batch to be prospective. He would further contend that the reliance placed upon the subsequent Division Bench in its order dated 30.04.2025, was upon a circular that had been issued in the year 2010, which is not supported by the Act of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 2023, governing the private schools. Therefore, the subsequent Division Bench judgment cannot be said to be a good law. 4. As regards the qualification of TET, he would submit that the Government had taken a policy decis