Grace Merina C v. The Joint Director of Elementary Education

O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.] The Writ Petitioner before the learned Single Judge is the appellant herein.

¶2The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction to the first respondent to dispose of an appeal filed by the 4th respondent/School Management, dated 08.10.2024 and consequently approve the appointment of the appellant herein as a Secondary Grade Teacher from the date of her appointment, i.e.,

05.10.2017.

¶3The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the appellant could not maintain the Writ Petition and that it was mainly the School Management which could seek approval of the appointment of the appellant herein. On that ground, questioning the locus of the appellant, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

¶4We wanted clarification of the facts and it has now been clarified that it was the School Management/4th respondent which had forwarded the representation seeking approval of the appointment of the appellant as a Secondary Grade Teacher. This representation was given to the second respondent/District Educational Officer (Elementary), Tirunelveli. It is now pending. However, the representation had been forwarded directly to the Government, and the Government had forwarded the same back to the second respondent / District Educational Officer (Elementary), Tirunelveli. The second respondent will now have to furnish its remarks and forward the same to the first respondent/Joint Director of Elementary Education, Chennai. The first respondent may dispose of the representation forwarded by the 4th respondent/School Management within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶5We would clarify that the representation had been forwarded only by the 4th respondent and not by the appellant herein. Therefore, we would state that the learned Single Judge had unfortunately been misdirected into holding that it was the appellant, who had forwarded the representation and therefore, the dismissal of the Writ Petition on the issue of locus standi does not withstand scrutiny. At any rate, the onus is now on the first respondent to dispose of the representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶6This Writ Appeal stands disposed of with the above terms. No costs.

[C.V.K., J.] & [R.S.V., J.]

27.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Indu To

1.The Joint Director of Elementary Education, DPI Complex College Road, Chennai-6.

2.The District Educational Officer (Elementary), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Block Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.

4.The Correspondent, STC Primary School, Melaseval, Tirunelveli District. C.V.oKARTHIKEYAN,oJ. AND oR.SAKTHIVELoo,oJo. Indu W.A(MD)oNo.995oofo2026

27.07.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL W.A(MD) No.995 of 2026 Grace Merina.C ...... Appellant Vs. 1.The Joint Director of Elementary Education, DPI Complex College Road, Chennai-6. 2.The District Educational Officer (Elementary), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Block Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Correspondent, STC Primary School, Melaseval, Tirunelveli District. ...... Respondents Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.13610 of 2026 dated 30.04.2026 and allow the present Writ Appeal. For Appellant : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam, For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.P.Senthil Counsel for State of TN