J.Alice Chandra v. The State of Tamil Nadu

O R D E R This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.1716/A5/2026, dated 13.07.2026, issued by the fourth respondent, deputing the petitioner to the sixth respondent – School from the fifth respondent – School for a short period from 14.07.2026 to 31.07.2026 only.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being the seniormost Secondary Grade Teacher working the fifth respondent – School, ought not to have been deputed to the sixth respondent – School and the juniormost Secondary Grade Teacher in the fifth respondent – School should have been deputed in the place of the petitioner. She further submits that the petitioner has undergone hysterectomy surgery and her husband also underwent a bypass surgery and therefore, she has family problem to travel everyday for about 26 kilometres to work in the sixth respondent – School.

¶3On the other hand, Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan, learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu, who takes notice for the respondents, basing on the written instructions, submits that the petitioner has been deputed to the sixth respondent – School for a short span of time considering the fact that the teachers working in the sixth respondent – School have been deputed for census work and hence, the fourth respondent thought that the services of the petitioner are required in the sixth respondent – School till the census work is completed. He further submits that the deputation of the petitioner to the sixth respondent – School is only for a short period from 14.07.2026 till 31.07.2026 and immediately after 31.07.2026, she will be brought back to the fifth respondent - School.

¶4This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the entire materials available on record.

¶5From the perusal of the impugned proceedings itself it is evident that the deputation of the petitioner from the fifth respondent – School to the sixth respondent - School is for the specified period from 14.07.2026 to

31.07.2026. It is not a case where on finding the petitioner being surplus in the fifth respondent – School, she has been deputed to the sixth respondent – School to make an alternative arrangement consequent upon the deputation of the teachers working in the sixth respondent – School for census purpose. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being the seniormost Secondary Grade Teacher in the fifth respondent – School ought not to have been deputed and instead, the juniormost Secondary Grade Teacher should have been deputed does not stand to legal scrutiny. That principle would apply only if the teacher is found surplus in the fifth respondent – School and then sought to be sent to another school. But, that is not the case on hand. In the discretion of the fourth respondent, he thought that the services of the petitioner being the seniormost Secondary Grade Teacher having vast experience would be better utilized in the sixth respondent – School, that too for a short span of time. Further, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the sixth respondent – School is only at the distance of 25 kilometres from the present place of working of the petitioner and therefore, no serious prejudice would be caused if the petitioner works in the sixth respondent – School till 31.07.2026.

¶6In the light of the above submission of the learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu appearing for the respondents that the petitioner would be brought back to the fifth respondent – School immediately after 31.07.2026, this Court is not inclined to exercise it's extra-ordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned proceedings.

¶7Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed duly placing on record the above statement made by the learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu appearing for the respondents. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

16.07.2026 NCC : Index : Internet :

krk To:

1.The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

3.The District Educational Officer (Elementary), The District Educational Office, Tanjore District-631 001.

4.The Block Educational Officer, The Block Educational Office, Sivagangai Park, Tanjore District-631 001.

5.The Headmaster, Panchayat Union Middle School, Kulichapattu, Tanjore District.

6.The Headmaster, Panchayat Union Middle School, Ayyasamypatti, Thanjavur Panchayat Union, Thanjavur District. MUMMINENI-SUDHEER-KUMAR,-J. krk W.P.(MD)-No.20431-of-2026 and W.M.P.(MD)-Nos.15130,-15131-&- 15133-of-2026

16.07.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.15130, 15131 & 15133 of 2026 J.Alice Chandra ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Principal Secretary Department of School Education Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 2.The Director of Elementary Education College Road, Chennai-600 006 3.The District Educational Officer (Elementary) The District Educational Office Tanjore District-631 001 4.The Block Educational Officer The Block Educational Office Sivagangai Park Tanjore District-631 001 5.The Headmaster Panchayat Union Middle School Kulichapattu, Tanjore District 6.The Headmaster Panchayat Union Middle School Ayyasamypatti Thanjavur Panchayat Union Thanjavur District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the fourth respondent Block Educational Officer in Na.Ka.No.1716/A5/2026, dated 13.07.2026, quash the same and further direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the fifth respondent school and consequently forbear the respondents from deputing the petitioner to any other school. For Petitioner : Ms.M.F.Rooshi Maas for M/s.Isaac Chambers For Respondents : Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan Counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu