BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order

17.11.2025 23.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU W.P.(MD) No.28204 of 2025 & W.M.P.(MD).No. 21920 of 2025 Tmt.Jakkammal ... Petitioner -vs-

1.The Joint Director of Higher Education, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 006. 2.The Chief Educational Officer, Theni.

3.The District Educational Officer, (Secondary), Theni.

4.The Secretary, Pankajam Girls' Higher Secondary School, Bodinayakkanur, Theni. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relates to the order of the fourth respondent made in Na.Ka.No.208/2025, dated 29.09.2025 and quash the same as it is arbitrary and illegal and in consequence to direct him to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in the fourth respondent school with all attendant benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suryanarayanan For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar A.G.P., for RR1 to R3 Mr.P.Aswin Rajasimman for R4

O R D E R

This Writ Petition had been filed to quash the order of the fourth respondent, dated 29.09.2025 as it is arbitrary and illegal and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in the fourth respondent school with all attendant benefits.

2. Heard Mr.R.Suryanarayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.P.Aswin Rajasimman, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Headmistress in the fourth respondent school, which is a private aided school. While that being so, the petitioner was served with a charge memo on 04.11.2022, alleging that the petitioner had failed in her duty as Headmistress to record the absence of a B.T. Assistant Teacher, violated the Rules by purchasing the land without permission from the Department and had made allegations against the Management. He would submit that denying all the said charges, the petitioner had also submitted her explanation. Thereafter, the petitioner was also placed under suspension. He would submit that challenging the said charge memo and the order of suspension, the petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.721 of 2023. This Court by order dated 11.01.2023, disposed of the said Writ Petition, by appointing an Advocate as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer had held that two of the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and the fourth respondent without even furnishing the report, found the petitioner guilty on all the three charges and called upon the petitioner to submit her further explanation on 10.04.2023. The petitioner had also submitted her explanation on 20.04.2023 and thereafter no orders were passed. He would submit that out of the blue on 30.06.2025, the petitioner received a notice calling upon her to submit a further representation to which the petitioner had also sent a representation on 10.07.2025. The petitioner was informed that by a resolution of the school committee of the fourth respondent, a decision was taken to compulsorily retire the petitioner and the same was communicated to her vide the impugned order.

4. He would submit that the petitioner being the Headmistress of the school is also an ex-officio member of the school committee and would vehemently contend that no notice was issued for the convening of a school committee on 25.09.2025, where the said resolution is claimed to have been passed. He would further submit that the enquiry have been concluded in the year 2023 and no orders have been passed till 2025. As stipulated under Rule 29(4)(d) of the Tamil Nadu Private School (Regulation) Rules, 2023, any order of punishment passed beyond the period prescribed therein would have to be struck down on