Finality of previous court decisions prohibits re-litigation of the same issues in later petitions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.01.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED W.A.No.3704 of 2025 I. John Wilson Azariah .. Appellant Vs.

1. The Director of School Education DPI Compound, College Road Chennai – 6.

2. The Chief Educational Officer Thirupattur.

3. The District Educational Officer Thirupattur, Thirupattur District.

4. The Correspondent Concordia Higher Secondary School Ambur – 635 802, Thirupattur District.

5. Eunice Chandrathayam .. Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P.No.72 of 2023 dated 21.09.2023.

For the Appellant : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For the Respondents : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 21.09.2023 made in W.P.No.72 of

2023.

2. The present appellant was the writ petitioner, who was promoted and appointed as Headmaster of the fourth respondent School, namely the Concordia Higher Secondary School, Ambur, Thirupattur District, by the order dated 06.01.2017. However, on 09.11.2017, the fifth respondent was appointed as the Headmistress (in-charge) of the School by the third respondent, namely the District Educational Officer, Thirupattur.

3. Though the fourth respondent School is a private aided Minority School and the appointment has to be made only by the School Management, in this context, the interim arrangement of Headmistress (in-charge) was appointed by the District Educational Officer directly because of the issue where there has been a dispute in the Management and by virtue of which, there has been two groups; one group supporting the candidature of the appellant/writ petitioner and the another group supporting the candidature of the fifth respondent it seems. As a result of which, the District Educational Officer has appointed the fifth respondent as the Headmistress (in-charge) and she had been continuously working by the order dated 09.11.2017.

4. In fact, the said order was challenged by the appellant/writ petitioner in W.P.No.17245 of 2018. The said writ petition was disposed along with a number of writ petitions in a batch of cases by a common order passed by the Writ Court dated 30.10.2019. In the said order, the order impugned in the said writ petition, that is W.P.No.17245 of 2018, on the part of the very same appellant/writ petitioner, has not been touched upon, thereby, the 09.11.2017 order, appointing the fifth respondent as the Headmistress (in-charge) of the fourth respondent School, has been left untouched, thereby, the fifth respondent continuously worked as the Headmistress (in-charge) of the fourth respondent School. 5. However, directions have been given commonly in the said order of the Writ Court dated 30.10.2019, directing the concerned District Educational Officers and the Chief Educational Officers to consider the proposals submitted by the respective Schools/Correspondents, where proposals for such appointment approvals are pending, those proposals were directed to be considered on merits. Based on the said directions given by the Writ Court dated 30.10.2019, the proposal or request made on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner for giving approval of his appointment made by one group of Management, appointing him as the Headmaster with effect from 01.06.2017, having been c