Madras High Court
Saratha Devi vs The Chief Educational Officer on 3 July, 2026
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 26.02.2026
DELIVERED ON : 03.07.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026 &
Cont.P(MD)No.246 of 2026
and
WMP(MD)No.3059 of 2026
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026:-
Saratha : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
O/o.Chief Educational Officer,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The District Educational Officer,
O/o.District Educational Officer,
Sivakasi,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Correspondent,
Gurugnana Sampandar Hindu Higher Secondary School,
Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
4.The Correspondent,
Nadar Magamai High School,
Elayirampannai,
Virudhunagar District.
5.The Director of School Education,
Chennai. : Respondents
[R.5 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 03.07.2026]
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the impugned proceedings passed by the first
respondent in Na.Ka.No.8214/A3/2024 dated 03.12.2025, quash the same
and consequently, directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders
by deploying the petitioner to the third respondent school, in accordance
with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan,
Additional Government Pleader
for R.1, R.2
Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Pozhilan for R.3, R.4
*****
2/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
Cont.P(MD)No.246 of 2026:-
Saratha Devi : Petitioner
Vs.
Aravindhan,
Chief Educational Officer,
O/o.Chief Educational Officer,
Virudhunagar District. : Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to
punish the respondent / contemnor for wilfully disobeying the order made
in WP(MD)No.26213 of 2025, dated 06.11.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balaji
For Respondent : Mr.M.Sarangan,
Additional Government Pleader
*****
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner has filed WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026 seeking to quash the
proceedings of the Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, dated
03.12.2025. She has also filed Cont.P(MD)No.246 of 2026 alleging that the
first respondent has wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court in
WP(MD)No.26213 of 2025 dated 06.11.2025. Since both the writ petition
3/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
and the contempt petition arise out of the same set of facts and involve
common issues for consideration, they are taken up together and are
disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties
are referred to by their rank in WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026.
2.The petitioner is a qualified Special Teacher (Drawing). During the
staff fixation exercise for the academic year 2024-2025, she was declared
surplus in Sri Renuga Hindu High School, W.Pudhupatti, Virudhunagar,
where she had been serving. Consequently, by proceedings dated
28.05.2025, the first respondent deployed her to the third respondent
school. However, the third respondent school declined to accommodate the
petitioner on the ground that it is a boys’ school, that no female teaching or
non-teaching staff are employed therein and that the school does not
possess the infrastructural facilities required for accommodating a woman
teacher. A communication to that effect was addressed by the third
respondent to the first respondent. Acting upon the said communication,
the first respondent did not enforce the deployment order issued in favour
of the petitioner and, instead, by proceedings dated 09.06.2025, redeployed
4/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
her to the fourth respondent school. Aggrieved by the said action, the
petitioner filed WP(MD)No.26213 of 2025 seeking issuance of a writ of
mandamus directing the Chief Educational Officer and the District
Educational Officer to absorb her in any one of the vacant posts of Special
Teacher (Drawing) in Government Aided High Schools or Higher
Secondary Schools situated within Watrap Taluk, Virudhunagar District,
or, in the alternative, to deploy her to the third respondent school by
considering her representation dated 17.07.2025.
3.The third respondent school entered appearance in the said writ
petition and opposed the relief sought. During the course of hearing, the
petitioner filed an undertaking affidavit stating that she would not seek or
claim any special treatment on the ground that she is a woman teacher if
she were to be deployed to the third respondent school. Recording the said
undertaking, this Court, by order dated 06.11.2025, disposed of the writ
petition directing the Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, to
consider the petitioner’s claim for deployment to the third respondent
school and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.
5/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
4.Pursuant to the said order, the Chief Educational Officer, instead of
independently examining the claim of the petitioner, once again sought the
views of the third respondent school regarding the proposed deployment
in the light of the undertaking furnished by the petitioner. By
communication dated 01.12.2025, the third respondent reiterated its earlier
stand and refused to accommodate the petitioner. The relevant portion of
the said communication reads as follows:
“Based on the above statutory bar, I also place on record that ours
is Boys Higher Secondary School with no female staff or essential
facilities to accommodate a woman teacher. These infrastructural
constraints were already communicated to you earlier and the same was
accepted by you. Therefore, accomodating her in our school is legally
impermissible and contrary to the statutory scheme and therefore we
request you not to issue any deployment order to our school.”
5.In view of the stand once again taken by the third respondent
school, the first respondent, by proceedings dated 03.12.2025, reaffirmed
the earlier order dated 09.06.2025 deploying the petitioner to the fourth
respondent school. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner has
6/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
filed the present writ petition. She has also initiated the contempt
proceedings alleging that the first respondent has failed to comply with the
directions issued by this Court in WP(MD)No.26213 of 2025 dated
06.11.2025.
6.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was declared surplus during the staff fixation exercise for the
academic year 2024-2025 and was initially deployed to the third respondent
school by proceedings dated 28.05.2025. However, the third respondent
school refused to accommodate her solely on the ground that it is a boys’
school and that adequate facilities are not available for a woman teacher.
According to the learned counsel, there is neither any provision under the
Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 2018 nor the Rules framed
thereunder prohibiting the deployment or appointment of a woman teacher
in a boys’ school. It was contended that the first respondent, instead of
enforcing the statutory deployment order, accepted the untenable stand
taken by the third respondent school and arbitrarily redeployed the
petitioner to the fourth respondent school.
7/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
7.He further submitted that the fourth respondent school is situated
at a considerable distance from the petitioner’s residence, requiring her to
travel for more than four hours every day, thereby causing severe physical
hardship. It was also pointed out that the petitioner is a widow having
dependent children and an ailing mother-in-law to take care of. It was in
those circumstances that she approached this Court in WP(MD)No.26213 of
2025. The petitioner had also voluntarily filed an undertaking that she
would not seek any special treatment as a woman teacher if she were to be
deployed to the third respondent school. Though this Court directed the
first respondent to consider her claim on merits and in accordance with
law, the first respondent has mechanically reiterated the earlier decision by
once again deploying the petitioner to the fourth respondent school
without independently considering the matter. According to the learned
counsel, such action amounts to wilful disobedience of the directions
issued by this Court.
8/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
8.According to the learned Counsel, pending these proceedings, a
vacancy in the post of Special Teacher (Drawing) has arisen in Sri Renuga
Hindu High School, W.Pudhupatti, Virudhunagar, where the petitioner
had originally been serving, consequent upon the demise of the incumbent
teacher. It was therefore contended that the petitioner can now be
accommodated in the said school itself, thereby avoiding the hardship
presently faced by her.
9.The third respondent school has filed a counter affidavit contending
that it is exclusively a boys’ Higher Secondary School where no female
teaching or non-teaching staff are employed and that the necessary
infrastructural facilities required for accommodating a woman teacher are
not available. It is therefore submitted that the school was justified in
informing the first respondent that the petitioner could not be
accommodated.
9/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
10.Learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent further
submitted that the petitioner has already joined duty in the fourth
respondent school on 16.06.2025 and that no teacher has a vested right to
insist upon posting at a particular institution. Therefore, he prayed for
dismissal.
11.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned Counsel appearing on either side and the materials placed on
record.
12.The petitioner is serving as a Special Teacher (Drawing). During
the staff fixation exercise for the academic year 2024-2025, she was declared
surplus. Consequently, in exercise of the powers conferred under the
statutory Rules, the first respondent issued proceedings dated 28.05.2025
deploying the petitioner to the third respondent school, where a sanctioned
vacancy admittedly existed. The deployment order, however, was never
implemented since the third respondent school declined to accommodate
10/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
the petitioner on the ground that it is a boys’ school and that no
infrastructural facilities are available for a woman teacher. Instead of
ensuring implementation of the deployment order already issued, the first
respondent accepted the objection raised by the third respondent
management and redeployed the petitioner to the fourth respondent
school. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by filing
WP.(MD) No.26213 of 2025.
13.While disposing of the earlier writ petition, this Court took note of
the undertaking furnished by the petitioner that, if deployed to the third
respondent school, she would not seek any special treatment or additional
facilities merely because she is a woman teacher. Recording the said
undertaking, this Court directed the first respondent to consider the
petitioner’s request for deployment to the third respondent school on its
own merits and in accordance with law. The tenor of the earlier order
leaves no room for doubt that the first respondent was required to
independently examine the issue in the light of the statutory provisions and
arrive at a reasoned decision. The impugned proceedings dated 03.12.2025,
11/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
however, disclose no such exercise. They merely reproduce the objections
raised by the third respondent management and mechanically reaffirm the
earlier decision deploying the petitioner to the fourth respondent school.
The order does not reflect any independent application of mind to the
petitioner’s claim, as directed by this Court.
14.The third respondent is an aided non-minority private school
receiving grant-in-aid from the Government. It is, therefore, governed by
the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 2018
[in short “the Act”] and the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules,
2023 [in short “the Rules”]. The Rules recognise that once a teacher is
identified as surplus and a deployment order is issued by the competent
authority, the process cannot be frustrated merely because a management
refuses to comply. Instead of treating such refusal as bringing the
deployment to an end, the Rules themselves prescribe the consequences
that should follow and the further course of action to be adopted by the
educational authorities. Rule 32(B)(11) and Rule 32(B)(12), which are
relevant to the deployment of staff identified as surplus, are extracted
12/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
hereunder for reference:-
“(11) Where the Secretary of the school committee or the
management of the school, as the case may be, refuses to relieve the
deployed staff, the grant – in – aid extended to that particular post which
has been declared surplus shall be stopped immediately forthwith.
(12) Where the Secretary of the school committee or the
management of the school, as the case may be, to which such surplus
staff has been deployed refuses to accommodate the deployed staff, the
Secretary of the school committee or the management of the school, as
the case may be, shall not fill up the vacant post without the approval of
the competent authority. In such case, if the deployment has been made
by the District Educational Officer concerned in respect of Primary and
Middle schools, the fact shall be intimated to the Director of Elementary
Education who shall take action to send such deployed staff on
deputation to some other nearby Panchayat Union school till a vacancy
arises in any other aided school for the purpose of deployment as
prescribed in sub-rule(7) above. If the deployment has been made by
District Educational Officer concerned in respect of High and Higher
Secondary schools, the fact shall be intimated to the Chief Educational
Officer concerned and the Chief Educational Officer shall intimate the
same to the Director of School Education who shall take action to send
such deployed staff on deputation to some other nearby Government13/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batchschool till a vacancy arises in any other aided school for the purpose of
deployment as prescribed in sub-rule(7) above. If the deployment has
been made by the Joint Director concerned, in respect of Anglo-Indian
schools the fact shall be intimated to the concerned Director who shall
take action to send such deployed staff on deputation to some other
nearby Government school till a vacancy arises in any other Anglo-
Indian school for the purpose of deployment has prescribed in sub-rule
(7) above.”
15.A plain reading of Rule 32(B)(11) and Rule 32(B)(12) makes the
legislative intent abundantly clear. The Rules do not provide that a
deployment order becomes ineffective merely because either the relieving
school or the receiving school refuses to comply with it. On the contrary,
they proceed on the footing that the deployment continues to remain valid
and prescribe the consequences that should follow such refusal. While Rule
32(B)(11) provides for stoppage of grant in respect of the surplus post if the
relieving school refuses to relieve the deployed teacher, Rule 32(B)(12)
prohibits the receiving school from filling up the vacancy without the
approval of the competent authority and further requires the educational
authorities to take appropriate consequential steps till the teacher is
14/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
accommodated in accordance with the Rules. The legislative intent is clear.
The statutory scheme does not recognise the refusal of the management as
putting an end to the deployment. It merely regulates the consequences
flowing from such refusal.
16.Section 32 of the Act also makes appointments in aided private
schools subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. An aided
institution, while retaining its identity as a private institution, receives
financial assistance from the State and is bound by the statutory conditions
governing such aid. Having accepted grant-in-aid from the State, it is
equally bound by the statutory obligations governing such aid. Once a
deployment is made by the competent authority in exercise of the powers
conferred under the Rules, the management has no authority to sit in
appeal over such decision or determine for itself whether the deployed
teacher should be accommodated. The Act does not leave such non-
compliance without consequences. Section 36 of the Act empowers the
Government to withhold grant-in-aid where an aided institution fails to
comply with the provisions of the Act, the Rules or the lawful directions
15/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
issued thereunder. It is, therefore, for the competent authorities to examine
whether the conduct of the third respondent management warrants action
under the Act.
17.The only objection raised by the third respondent for refusing to
accommodate the petitioner is that it is a boys’ school and that adequate
infrastructural facilities are not available for a woman teacher. Such an
objection cannot be accepted. The petitioner has already placed on record
her undertaking before this Court that she would not seek any special
treatment or additional facilities merely because she is a woman teacher.
More importantly, neither the Act nor the Rules prohibit the deployment of
a woman teacher to a boys’ school. In the absence of any statutory
prohibition, the objection raised by the third respondent has no legal
foundation and could not have formed the basis for declining to implement
the deployment order.
18.Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this
Court finds that the first respondent has failed to discharge the statutory
16/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
obligation cast upon him. This Court had earlier directed the first
respondent to independently consider the petitioner’s request on its own
merits and in accordance with law. The impugned proceedings, however,
disclose no such independent consideration. They merely reproduce the
objections raised by the third respondent management and mechanically
reaffirm the earlier decision deploying the petitioner to the fourth
respondent school, without adverting either to the statutory scheme
governing deployment or to the consequences flowing from Rules 32(B)(11)
and 32(B)(12). The impugned proceedings thus proceed entirely on the
objections of the third respondent management and not on the statutory
scheme embodied in the Act and the Rules. The first respondent has, in
effect, treated the deployment order issued by his own office as subject to
the approval of the third respondent management. The first respondent has
thus abdicated the statutory discretion vested in him and surrendered the
decision-making process to the dictates of the third respondent
management, which is not legally permissible. The impugned proceedings
dated 03.12.2025 are, therefore, liable to be set aside.
17/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
19.Insofar as the contempt petition is concerned, this Court is of the
view that the first respondent has passed an order pursuant to the
directions issued by this Court. The said order has now been found to be
legally unsustainable on account of his failure to independently apply his
mind to the issue and to act in accordance with the statutory scheme
governing deployment of surplus teachers. Since the validity of the order
has been examined in these writ proceedings and appropriate relief has
been granted to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to proceed further
with the contempt petition.
20.Accordingly, the proceedings of the first respondent dated
03.12.2025 are set aside. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the
deployment of the petitioner afresh, strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and the Rules, keeping in view the observations made
in this order. While undertaking such exercise, the first respondent shall
also consider the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that a
vacancy has arisen in Sri Renuga Hindu High School, W.Pudhupatti,
Virudhunagar, and if such vacancy is found to exist and the petitioner is
18/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
otherwise eligible to be accommodated therein in accordance with the
statutory Rules, appropriate orders shall be passed. Such exercise shall be
completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
21.Before parting with the case, this Court considers it necessary to
make certain observations regarding the implementation of the statutory
scheme governing deployment of surplus teachers. Rule 32(B) prescribes a
definite timeline for completing the exercise. Staff fixation is to be
completed before 12th August, the list of surplus teachers is to be
communicated before 15th August, school managements are required to
furnish the particulars of vacancies before 22nd August and deployment
orders are to be issued before 31st August of the academic year.
Unfortunately, these timelines are seldom adhered to in practice and
deployment orders are often issued after a substantial part of the academic
year has elapsed. Consequently, teachers raise a grievance that they have
already been handling classes for several months and that a mid-year
deployment would cause hardship to them and also affect the continuity of
19/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
teaching for the students. The Courts are also generous in granting interim
stay on the order of deployment in such cases. However, delay in issuing
deployment orders cannot be permitted to defeat the statutory scheme
itself. If every delayed deployment is allowed to remain unimplemented
solely on that ground, surplus teachers would continue in schools where
they are no longer required and the Government would continue to incur
salary expenditure without securing the benefit of utilising their services in
schools where vacancies exist.
22.The present case itself illustrates the consequences of such delay.
Though the petitioner was identified as surplus during the academic year
2024-2025, the first respondent issued the deployment order only on
28.05.2025, almost at the end of the academic year. No explanation has been
placed before this Court for such an inordinate delay. When the
Government spends several hundreds of crores of rupees every year
towards the salaries of teachers, it is under a corresponding obligation to
ensure that such teachers are effectively utilised in institutions where their
services are actually required. The public money is sanctioned not merely
20/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
for payment of salaries but for ensuring that students receive the benefit of
adequate teaching staff. Therefore, a surplus teacher continuing in one
school corresponds to a sanctioned vacancy remaining unfilled elsewhere
and the authorities cannot remain indifferent to the same.
23.In the absence of any explanation for the delay in issuing the
deployment order, this Court is of the view that the matter requires
administrative examination. Accordingly, the Director of School Education,
Chennai, is directed to examine the reasons for the delay in issuing the
deployment order to the petitioner. If it is found that the delay was
attributable to any lapse or dereliction on the part of the first respondent or
any other officer, the Director shall take appropriate action against such
officer in accordance with law, including initiation of disciplinary
proceedings and recovery of the salary which was paid to the petitioner
during this period, from such officer. The Director shall also examine
whether the repeated refusal of the third respondent school management to
comply with the deployment order warrants initiation of appropriate
proceedings under the provisions of the Act, including action under Section
21/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
36 and take appropriate action. For the said purpose, the Director of School
Education, Chennai, is suo-motu impleaded as a party to the writ petition.
With the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed. The
contempt petition is closed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Internet : Yes 03.07.2026
gk
Note:
Mark a copy of this order to
1. The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The Director of School Education,
Chennai.
To
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
O/o.Chief Educational Officer,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The District Educational Officer,
O/o.District Educational Officer,
Sivakasi,
Virudhunagar District.
22/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026 &
Cont.P(MD)No.246 of 2026
03.07.2026
23/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[ad_1]
Source link
