IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

V.Vijendiran : Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

Represented by its Principal Secretary to

Government,

School Education Department,

Fort St.George,

Chennai-600 009.

2.The Director of School Education,

DPI Campus,

Chennai-600 006.

3.Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),

School Education,

DPI Campus,

Chennai-600 006. : Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with the impugned G.O. passed by the first respondent in G.O. (1D)No.90, School Education (Pa.Ka.4(2)(Department), dated 03.03.2016 and the consequential proceedings of the 1^st respondent in Letter No.8964/Pa.Ka.4(2)/2018, dated 25.06.2018 and the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Mu.Mu.No.26466/A4/E1/2018, dated 11.12.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to declare the probation of the petitioner with effect from 04.11.2009, by conferring all consequential and monetary

benefits, including annual increments and promotion as Assistant, in the year 2010, on par with his juniors.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 03.03.2016 and the consequential proceedings dated 25.06.2018 and confirmed order passed by the third respondent dated 11.12.2019 thereby rejected the request made by the petitioner to change the date of declaration of probation period.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate appointment and thereafter, his service was regularized with effect from 05.11.2007 by G.O.Ms.No.17 dated 27.02.2012. Because of delay in regularization of the petitioner's appointment, many juniors who were appointed after the petitioner's appointment got their probation declared successfully and they were placed in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant even in the year 2010 itself. However, the petitioner was not considered to include in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant since the petitioner's service was not regularized in the year 2010. Only by order dated 27.02.2012, the petitioner's service was regularized with effect from 05.11.2007. The petitioner had passed District Officer Manual test on 31.05.2008. However, before the regularization of his service, he was not sent for Bhavani Sagar training. Though the petitioner repeatedly made request sending him for Bhavani Sagar training, within a period of two years from the date of his initial appointment, he was not considered for training since his service was not regularized. After the order of regularization of his service, he was sent to Bhavani Sagar training only on 10.12.2014. He successfully completed the training and appeared for examination, he cleared the said examination on 22.02.2015. However, his probation was declared only with effect from 22.06.2015 and he was granted monetary benefit of annual increment only with effect from 23.06.2015. Therefore, he lost his promotion to the post of Assistant and also he lost monetary benefits. Hence, the petitioner submitted representation to declare his probation with effect from 04.11.2009 instead of 22.06.2015. However, it was not considered and rejected and confirmed by the appellate authority.

3. This issue already dealt with by this Court and confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.35544 of 2016 by order dated 08.12.2023, wherein it was held as follows:

“3. The issue is as to whether the Government can declare the probation of its employees with effect from the date of completion of Bhavani Sagar training and not on completion of two years from the date of his/her initial appointment, has come up for consideration before this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions, wh