Madras High Court
S.B.Rexlin vs The Chief Educational Officer on 7 January, 2016
W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CORAM
Reserved on : 08.08.2025
Delivered on : 21.08.2025
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.P.Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016
AND
WMP.Nos.21740 of 2024 and 11324, 34237 of 2016
W.P.No.40205 of 2016
S.B.Rexlin ..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Chief Educational Officer,
Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet, Chennai-600015.
2.The District Educational Officer
Central Chennai,
Saidapet, Chennai-600015.
3.YMCA College Sports Hr.Secy. School,
Rep. By The Correspondent,
Nandanam, Chennai-600035.
4.Eugini Anitha Preethi G. ..Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm )
W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016
W.P.No. 12954 of 2016
G.Eugeni Anitha Preethi ..Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Educational Officer
Central Chennai,
Saidapet, Chennai-600015.
2.YMCA College Sports Hr.Secy. School,
Rep. By The Correspondent,
Nandanam, Chennai-600035. ..Respondents.
Prayer in W.P.No. 40205 of 2016: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing
the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as B.T Assistant Science by
promotion with effect from 01.03.2014 taking into account of the educational
qualification and seniority and in terms of Rule 15(4)(ii)(i) of the Tamil Nadu
Recognized Private Schools (Regulatin)Rules, 1974 and pass such further or
other orders.
Prayer in W.P.No. 12954 of 2016: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing
the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of BT
Assistant (Science) in the Petitioner School from the date of appointment on
22.06.2015 with all consequential and other attendant benefits including
payment of salary based on the proposal forwarded by the petitioner school
dated 07.01.2016, within a time frame as fixed by this Court.
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm )
W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.N.G.R. Prasad, Senior Counsel
for Mr.L.Pravin Babu – (W.P.No. 40205 of 2016)
Mr. S.Nedunchezhiyan (W.P.No. 12954 of 2016
and For R4 in W.P.No. 40205 of 2016)
For Respondents : Mr.LSM. Hasan Fizal, AGP (For R1 & R2 in
W.P.No. 40205 of 2016 and For R1 in
W.P.No. 21954 of 2016)
Mr.V.R.Thangavelu (For R3 in W.P.No.40205 of
2016 and For R2 in W.P.No.21954 of 2016)
COMMON ORDER
The issues involved in these two captioned writ petitions are interlinked. Hence, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
2. In W.P. No. 12954 of 2016, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, namely, the District Educational Officer, Central Chennai, Chennai–600015, to approve her appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) in YMCA College of Sports Higher Secondary School, Nandanam, Chennai.
3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016
3. In W.P. No. 40205 of 2016, the petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to appoint her as B.T. Assistant (Science) by way of promotion, with effect from 01.03.2014, taking into account her educational qualifications and seniority in terms of Rule 15(4)(ii)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974.
4. The miscellaneous petition in W.M.P. No. 21740 of 2014 in W.P. No. 40205 of 2016 has been filed seeking to amend the writ petition by incorporating an additional prayer to declare that the appointment of the fourth respondent, dated 22.06.2015, to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) in the third respondent school and the consequential approval granted by the Board of Management on 17.10.2015 are arbitrary and illegal, and to quash the same.
5. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in W.P. No. 40205 of 2016.
6. Factual Background 6.1 The petitioner, S.B. Rexlin, states that she completed her B.Sc. (Botany) in 2001, M.Sc. (Botany) in 2003, B.Ed. in 2004, and M.Ed. in 2011. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016 She was appointed as Assistant Headmistress in the Matriculation School run by the third respondent management in 2008, and she claims to have discharged her duties sincerely, diligently, and to the satisfaction of the school. The third respondent school, being a Higher Secondary School in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State Government, is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and the Rules framed thereunder.
6.2. In 2013, the petitioner applied for the post of Science Teacher (B.T. Assistant – Science) and was informed that she had been selected. She asserts that the third respondent management promised to absorb her into the said sanctioned post. Upon the retirement of one Precila Paul, who was holding the sanctioned post of B.T. Assistant (Science), with effect from 01.06.2014, the petitioner expected to be absorbed into the vacancy. However, contrary to the Rules, the third respondent appointed the fourth respondent, who was allegedly junior, less meritorious, and, significantly, the daughter of Mrs. Evelin Gnanadas, the then Headmistress of the third respondent school. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016 6.3. The case of the fourth respondent is that she possesses the requisite qualifications, namely B.Sc. (Zoology) and B.Ed., which render her eligible for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science). She was appointed to the said sanctioned post with effect from 22.06.2015, pursuant to the retirement of the incumbent on 01.06.2014. According to her, passing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) was not mandatory for such appointment, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India, [2014 (4) MLJ 486 (SC)]. It is further contended that the competent authority has, without valid reasons, failed to approve the proposal forwarded by the school for her appointment.
7. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. L. Parvin Babu, learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner, contended that the appointment of the fourth respondent was actuated by mala fides and marred by illegality, as she is the daughter of the then Headmistress of the third respondent school, besides being junior and less meritorious than the petitioner. He further submitted that a petition has been filed to amend the writ petition to incorporate a challenge to the appointment of the fourth respondent. He 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016 referred to a communication dated 18.08.2015 issued by the Correspondent of the third respondent school to the second respondent, wherein it was stated that the fourth respondent had obtained her appointment fraudulently and that she lacked the requisite qualifications, leading to the withdrawal of her appointment. It was further contended that the appointment of the fourth respondent was made without inviting applications from eligible candidates, thus lacking transparency and fairness. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in A. Silvester Suren Kumar v. The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli & Others (W.P. (MD) No. 127 of 2021, dated 16.06.2023).
8. Per contra, Mr. V.R. Thangavelu, learned counsel for the third respondent school, and Mr. S. Nedunchezhiyan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, submitted that the third respondent school is a minority educational institution. Although it receives grant-in-aid from the State, there is no obligation upon the management to appoint the senior-most member available. The choice, they argued, depends upon the assessment of the candidate’s outlook and philosophy. They further submitted that the petitioner was relieved from service with effect from 22.05.2018, owing to insufficient student strength, as evident from the office order dated 21.05.2018, produced as part of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016 the additional typed set of papers. Since the petitioner has not challenged the said relieving order, she has no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition or to challenge the appointment of the fourth respondent. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew & Others [2017 (15) SCC 595].
9. Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fazil, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, submitted that in view of the pendency of these writ petitions, the appointment of the fourth respondent has not been considered for approval. The proposal forwarded by the third respondent management will be considered as per the orders of this Court.
10. Upon hearing the learned counsels on either side, the following points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether W.P. No. 40205 of 2016 is maintainable in view of the question of locus standi; and if so, whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought?
(ii) Whether the fourth respondent is entitled to approval of her appointment by respondents 1 and 2?8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016 Point No. I 11.1. The petitioner claims superiority in seniority and merit over the fourth respondent. She contends that the management favoured the fourth respondent, the daughter of the Headmistress, thereby acting in violation of fairness and propriety. The communication dated 30.07.2014, issued by the then Headmistress, reveals that upon retirement of the incumbent B.T. Assistant (Science) on 01.03.2014, the selection committee provisionally selected her daughter, i.e., the fourth respondent, for the sanctioned post, while recommending that the petitioner be considered for another vacancy in future. The minutes of the Board of Management meeting dated 19.06.2015 also directed issuance of an appointment order in favour of the fourth respondent. Consequently, the Correspondent issued an order dated 22.06.2015 appointing her.
11.2. During the pendency of these proceedings, the petitioner was relieved from service with effect from 22.05.2018 by order dated 21.05.2018, on account of insufficient student strength. The petitioner accepted the order, and it has not been challenged till date. No affidavit has been filed to indicate her current employment status. By not challenging the relieving order, the 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016 petitioner has foreclosed her right to claim appointment or promotion in the third respondent school. Granting relief in the present writ petition would amount to nullifying the relieving order retrospectively. The petitioner’s conduct indicates that her persistence in prosecuting this writ petition stems from malice rather than from a legitimate grievance.
11.3. It is well-settled that a writ petition, especially in service matters, can be maintained only by an “aggrieved person.” In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan V/s. State of Maharashtra : (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Apex Court ruled as follows :
“ 13. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758)
14. In Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 33, this Court considered a similar issue and observed as under:– “There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016 an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the Court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional Courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hyper-
technical grounds. In other words, if the person is found to be not merely a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of his not having the locus standi.” (Emphasis added)”
15. In view of the above, the law on the said point can be summarised to the effect that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury. Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others.
Locus standi of respondent no.5 :
16. As respondent no.5 does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes category, the garb adopted by him, of serving the cause of Scheduled Tribes candidates who might have been deprived of their legitimate right to be considered for the post, must be 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016 considered by this Court in order to determine whether respondent no. 5, is in fact, in a legitimate position to lay any claim before any forum, whatsoever.
17. This Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad & Ors., (2012) 4 SCC 407, held as under:
“Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, ex-President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eye of the law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria.
The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro ratione voluntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons. Under the garb of being a necessary party, a person 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016 cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person who wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party.”
18. A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512, wherein it was held that, the applicant before the High Court could not challenge the appointment of a person as she was in no way aggrieved, for she herself could not have been selected by adopting either method. Morever, the appointment cannot be challenged at a belated stage and, hence, the petition should have been rejected by the High Court, on the grounds of delay and non- maintainability, alone.
19. In Balbir Kaur & Anr. v. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 1, it has been held that a violation of the equality clauses, enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, or discrimination in any form, can be alleged, provided that, the writ petitioner demonstrates a certain appreciable disadvantage qua other similarly situated persons.
13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016
20. While dealing with the similar issue, this Court in Raju Ramsingh Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhiavapurkar & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 54 held:
“We must now deal with the question of locus standi. A special leave petition ordinarily would not have been entertained at the instance of the appellant. Validity of appointment or otherwise on the basis of a caste certificate granted by a committee is ordinarily a matter between the employer and the employee. This Court, however, when a question is raised, can take cognizance of a matter of such grave importance suo motu. It may not treat the special leave petition as a public interest litigation, but, as a public law litigation. It is, in a proceeding of that nature, permissible for the court to make a detailed enquiry with regard to the broader aspects of the matter although it was initiated at the instance of a person having a private interest. A deeper scrutiny can be made so as to enable the court to find out as to whether a party to a lis is guilty of commission of fraud on the Constitution. If such an enquiry subserves the greater public interest and has a far- reaching effect on the society, in our opinion, this Court will not shirk its responsibilities from doing so.” (See also: Manohar Joshi v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2012) 3 SCC 619)”
21. In Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P., AIR 2001 SC 1739, it has been held as follows:
“Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016 the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of person is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief.”
22. Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus-standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in the exceptional circumstances as referred to above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, in articulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bonafides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo-motu, in such respect” .
23. In the present case, the petitioner, having been relieved from service under a valid office order, which she has neither challenged nor sought to set aside, cannot be regarded as an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of law. The foundation of locus standi lies in the demonstration of a legal injury namely, the violation of a legal right or the infraction of a legally protected interest. Since the relieving order remains unchallenged and has, therefore, 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016 attained finality, the petitioner cannot claim to have suffered any continuing legal injury on account of her non-consideration for appointment or promotion. In the absence of any subsisting right to the post, she is merely a stranger to the present lis, and a stranger without enforceable rights cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11.4. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that, owing to change in circumstances, W.P. No. 40205 of 2016 is not maintainable for want of locus standi.
Point No. II:
12.1. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the fourth respondent has not been permanently approved solely on account of the pendency of these writ petitions.
12.2. The appointment of the fourth respondent was made in accordance with the proceedings of the Board of Management. Though reliance is placed on a communication dated 18.08.2015 allegedly issued by the Correspondent claiming that the fourth respondent obtained appointment fraudulently and 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016 lacked qualifications, the minutes of the Board meeting dated 17.10.2015 demonstrate that the earlier meeting dated 19.06.2015, which approved her appointment, was duly ratified. Hence, the communication of the Correspondent cannot override the collective decision of the Board of Management.
12.3. Further, a subsequent communication dated 07.01.2016 was issued by the Correspondent forwarding the appointment order and supporting documents of the fourth respondent to the second respondent for approval. On 29.11.2016, the second respondent granted temporary approval, pending disposal of these writ petitions. Since then, the fourth respondent has been continuously working in the sanctioned post and drawing salary.
12.4. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew & Others [2017 (15) SCC 595], reiterates that the management of a minority aided institution is entitled to appoint a qualified candidate of its choice and is not bound to select the senior-most member of the community. The Court cannot sit in appeal over such managerial choices unless shown to be contrary to statutory provisions. 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016 12.5. In Educational and Cultural Trust & ors. -Vs- Union of India [(2014) 8 SCC 1], it was held that the RTE, Act 2009 insofar it applies to minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under Article 30(1) is ultravires the Constitution, meaning thereby the 2009 Act will not apply to minority schools, the eligibility of TET pass as required for appointment of teachers in non minority schools, will not apply to minority schools.
13. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.127 of 2021 cannot be pressed into service, as no ground was urged or objection taken that the post sought to be filled by direct recruitment had not been advertised and was filled without following due process of law. Furthermore, in the present case, the challenge to the appointment of Respondent No.4 has already been dismissed on the ground of locus standi, as alluded to supra
14. In light of the above, the petitioner’s challenge to the appointment of the fourth respondent lacks merit. The fourth respondent, being duly qualified, is entitled to permanent approval of her appointment. 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the following order is passed:
i. W.P. No. 40205 of 2016 is dismissed as not maintainable for want of locus standi. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 21740 of 2014 is closed.
ii. W.P. No. 12954 of 2016 is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
iii. The respondents are directed to accord permanent approval to the appointment of the fourth respondent / petitioner in W.P. No. 12954 of 2016 as B.T. Assistant (Science) in the third respondent school, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iv. There shall be no order as to costs.
21.08.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes ak 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016 HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
ak To
1. The Chief Educational Officer, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai-600015.
2.The District Educational Officer Central Chennai, Saidapet, Chennai-600015.
Pre-Delivery Order in W.P.Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016 21.08.2025 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm )