BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P(MD)No.24126 of 2025 and WMP(MD) Nos.18926, 18928 & 18929 of 2025 N.Prema ... Petitioner Vs

1.The District Educational Officer (Elementary Education), Karur District, Karur.

2.The Block Educational Officer,(Elementary Education), Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District.

3.The Secretary, Marutha Muslim Government Aided Elementary School, Pallapatti, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Ka.Tho.No.171 dated 14.08.2025 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 3rd Respondent School, within a time frame as stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanathan For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.H.Mohamed Zamil for M/s.Ajmal Associates

O R D E R

The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade teacher in Marutha Muslim Government Aided Elementary School, Pallapatti, Karur District/ the third respondent herein, in the year 1990. The third respondent School is an aided Institute. The petitioner was provided with selection grade, special grade and super grade benefits in the years 2000, 2010 and 2025 respectively. At this juncture, the petitioner has been issued with a charge memo on 11.03.2025, on certain allegations and also imposed with a major punishment of compulsory retirement by an order dated, 14.08.2025. Aggrieved by this order of punishment, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the major punishment of compulsory retirement has been passed by the respondent School, without even providing an opportunity to the petitioner, as required under Rule 29(4) of Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023. According to the learned counsel, before passing the order of punishment, no notice has been issued as against this petitioner. Moreover, a copy of the enquiry report has not been furnished to her. Therefore, the order of punishment is liable to be set aside.

3.The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the petitioner was issued with notices on 20.03.2025, 02.04.2025 and 29.04.2025 for the enquiry. However, she has not preferred to appear during the enquiry. The enquiry report has also been communicated to this petitioner through registered post.

However, this petitioner has not responded for the same.

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

5.This petitioner said to have served for more than 30 years as a teacher in the third respondent School. She was awarded with selection grade, special grade and also super grade. She was issued with a charge memo on 11.03.2025, framing 12 charges. At request of the petitioner, the Enquiry officer was also changed. The respondents claim that though notices were sent to the petitioner on 20.03.2025, 02.04.2025 and 29.04.2025, the petitioner has not responded to the same. The petitioner has taken a stand that no notice, under Rule 29(4) of Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023 was issued as against her, before passing the order of punishment. The petitioner has not appeared during the enquiry and therefore, an exparte minute was passed by the enquiry officer. This report was also said to have been communicated by the respondent school to the petitioner by way of a registered post. However, it appears that no notice as contemplated under Rule 29(4) of the Tamil Nadu Private School (Regulation) Rules, 2023 has been issued to this petitioner, before passing the order of punishment. The procedure for disciplinary action as against the staff of the aided private school i