R.K.Charlet vs The Director of School Education - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 45153

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 45153

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

WP No. 13153 of 2026

DATED: 08-04-2026

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

R.K.Charlet,
D/o.Ramesh Kumar, P.G.Assistant (Physics),
Concordia Higher Secondary School, Vaniyambadi, Thirupattur.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Chief Educational Officer, Thirupattur.
3. The District Educational Officer, (Elementary) Thirupattur.
4. The Correspondent, Concordia Higher Secondary School, Vaniyambadi, Thirupattur.
..Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s): Ms.Dakshyani Reddy, SC for Ms.S.Suneetha
For Respondent(s): Mrs.Mythreye Chandru, SGP for R1-3

PRAYER

: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to grant approval to the petitioner herein in the post of PG Assistant (Physics) with effect from 01.12.2024 in the 4th respondent school with all service and monetary benefits.

ORDER

The petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to grant approval to the petitioner herein in the post of PG Assistant (Physics) with effect from 01.12.2024 in the 4th respondent school with all service and monetary benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is qualified and eligible for the appointment in the vacant post of PG Assistant (Physics) in the 4th respondent minority aided institution. Hence, the petitioner has made an application seeking an appointment. The petitioner’s proposal for appointment was considered and he was appointed in the said vacancy on 01.12.2024 by the 4th respondent and the said proposal was forwarded to the third respondent seeking approval for the said appointment. The third respondent returned the proposal seeking an explanation for the delay in the appointment instead of considering the proposal based on the availability of vacancy and the eligibility of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4. Considering the relief now sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, directs the respondents to consider the proposal and approve the appointment, subject to the result of the matter in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust vs. The State of Maharashtra & others vide order dated 01.09.2025 in C.A.No.1385 of 2025 that is now referred by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court to the Chief Justice of India for a reference to a Larger Bench. Till such time, the decision made in the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust Vs.Union of India reported in (2014) 8 SCC 1 shall hold the fort.

With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document