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 Government

13/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.3755 of 2026, batch

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 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 12

th

August, the list of surplus teachers is to be

communicated before 15

th

August, school managements are required to

furnish the particulars of vacancies before 22

nd

August and deployment

orders are to be issued before 31

st

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