{"id":102226,"date":"2006-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006"},"modified":"2016-01-18T23:53:05","modified_gmt":"2016-01-18T18:23:05","slug":"t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"T.Selvarani vs The Joint Director Of School &#8230; on 29 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">T.Selvarani vs The Joint Director Of School &#8230; on 29 March, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 29\/03\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI\n\n\nW.P.No.2987 of 2004\nand\nW.P.M.P.No.521 of 2005\nand\nW.V.M.P.No.156 of 2004\n\n\nT.Selvarani\t\t\t....\tPetitioner\n\n\n\nVs.\n\t\n\n\n1.The Joint Director of School Education,\n  Secondary Education,\n  Chennai - 600 006.\n\n2.The District Educational Officer,\n  Virudhunagar,\n  Virudhunagar District.\n\n3.The Correspondent,\n  A.V.M.Marimuthu Nadar Higher\n  Secondary School,\n  Vilampatti Nadar Uravinmuraikku\n  Parthiappattathu,\n  Vilampatti (Post),\n  (Via) Sivakasi.\n\n4.Mrs.Muruga Pushpam,\t\t....\tRespondents\n\n\n\nPRAYER\n\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for the issuance of a Writ of  Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the\nrecords on the file of the third respondent in connection with the order of\nReversion passed by him in his proceedings No.Nil dated 18.10.2004 and quash the\nsame and consequently direct the third respondent to post the petitioner in the\noriginal post i.e. Tamil Pandit.\n\n\n!For Petitioner   \t\t...\tMr.G.Thalaimutharasu\n\n\n^For Respondents (1 -2)\t\t...\tMr.K.V.Vijayakumar,\n\t\t\t\t   \tSpecial Government Pleader.\n\nFor 3rd  Respondent\t\t...\tMr.N.Ramakrishnan\n\n\nFor 4th  Respondent\t\t...\tMr.K.Vellaisamy\n\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard the learned  counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned<br \/>\nSpecial Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 &amp; 2 and<br \/>\nMr.N.Ramakrishan, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd  respondent and<br \/>\nMr.K.Vellaisamy, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first<br \/>\nrespondent dated 18.10.2004 and to direct the third respondent to post the<br \/>\npetitioner as Tamil Pandit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The case of the petitioner is that she was originally appointed as a<br \/>\nSecondary Grade teacher in the year 1984 in the third respondent school.  when a<br \/>\nvacancy of Tamil Pandit become vacant the petitioner being the senior most<br \/>\nsecondary grade teacher was eligible for the said promotion. However, when the<br \/>\nfourth respondent appears to have objected and the claimed the post, on<br \/>\nclarification from  the District Educational Officer, the second respondent by<br \/>\nan order dated 05.07.2002, the petitioner was promoted as Tamil Pandit on<br \/>\n03.08.2002. From the date of the said appointment till date she has been working<br \/>\nas Tamil Pandit in the third respondent school.  The said appointment of the<br \/>\npetitioner was also approved by the second respondent on 10.02.2003. Against the<br \/>\nsaid order of appointment of the petitioner dated 03.08.2002, the fourth<br \/>\nrespondent preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 19.03.2003.  The<br \/>\nfirst respondent has allowed the said appeal filed by the fourth respondent on<br \/>\n01.09.2004. It was on the basis of the said order of the first respondent dated<br \/>\n01.09.2004 the petitioner was reverted on 18.10.2004 as a Secondary Grade<br \/>\nTeacher.  That reversion order dated 18.10.1994 passed by the third respondent<br \/>\nmanagement is impugned in this writ petition.  By virtue of the order of stay<br \/>\ngranted by this Court, the petitioner is continuing as a Tamil Pandit.  The<br \/>\nthird respondent is the aided school governed by the provisions of the Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act and rules made thereunder.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The petitioner states that the appointment of petitioner as a Tamil<br \/>\nPandit in the third respondent school on 03.08.2002 itself was based on the<br \/>\norder of approval of qualification from the second respondent dated 05.07.2002<br \/>\nand the promotion was in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nRecognised Private Schools (Regulations)Rules namely, the Rule 15(6) with<br \/>\nAnnexure V. The qualification for the post of Tamil Pandit was prescribed as<br \/>\nM.A.(Tamil) or B.A (Tamil) or MOL(Tamil) or BOL(Tamil); and B.Ed., or B.T., or<br \/>\nSecondary Grade Training etc.,<\/p>\n<p>\t5. According to the petitioner the petitioner has completed B.Ed Degree in<br \/>\nthe year 1993 and also passed M.A(Tamil) in the year 2001 and therefore she was<br \/>\nfully qualified as per the said rules.  Hence, the promotion given to her as<br \/>\nTamil Pandit on 03.08.2002 is in accordance with rules.  Therefore, the<br \/>\nreversion of the petitioner is not valid in law.  The order passed by the first<br \/>\nrespondent dated 01.09.2004 without giving notice to the petitioner and passed<br \/>\nbehind the back of the petitioner is not binding on the petitioner and the same<br \/>\nis opposed the principles of natural justice.  As on the date of appointment of<br \/>\nthe petitioner as Tamil Pandit the required qualification was M.A (Tamil) or<br \/>\nB.A.(Tamil) and B.Ed and inasmuch as the petitioner was having Post Graduate<br \/>\nDegree in Tamil and B.Ed she was well qualified as per the requirement.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The third respondent has filed the counter affidavit stating that the<br \/>\nimpugned order itself was passed by the third respondent only based on the order<br \/>\nof the first respondent dated 01.09.2004 which was passed based on the appeal<br \/>\nfiled by the fourth respondent dated 19.03.2003 challenging the order of<br \/>\nappointment of the petitioner dated 03.08.2002 and subsequent approval o her<br \/>\nappointment by the second respondent dated 10.02.2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Therefore, according to the third respondent the third respondent has<br \/>\nto only execute orders of the first respondent.  According to the third<br \/>\nrespondent the petitioner and the fourth respondent are almost equally qualified<br \/>\nbut for the difference that the petitioner possess B.A. (History) and<br \/>\nM.A.(Tamil) Degree, while the fourth respondent possess B.A in Tamil Degree.<br \/>\nAccording to the  third respondent the Appellate Authority the first respondent<br \/>\nhas followed the Government orders G.O.Ms.No.930 dated 09.06.1975,<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.1732 dated 30.08.1980, and G.O.Ms.No.662 dated 13.04.1982 and has<br \/>\nfound that the fourth respondent is more suitable to the post.  The first<br \/>\nrespondent in the order dated 1.09.2004 has also chosen to rely on the said<br \/>\nGovernment orders to say that the teachers who are appointed in a particular<br \/>\nsubject should have taken that  subject as a first subject for the post of their<br \/>\nappointment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Therefore, apparently, the first respondent has presumed that the<br \/>\npetitioner had passed M.A.(Tamil) only  while the fourth respondent in<br \/>\nB.A.(Tamil) and therefore she is better qualified.  The fourth respondent in the<br \/>\ncounter affidavit would state that as far as she is concerned she has challenged<br \/>\nthe order of appointment of the petitioner as Tamil Pandit dated 03.08.2002 and<br \/>\nthe first respondent being an Appellate Authority by the order dated 01.09.2004<br \/>\nhas set aside the promotion given to the petitioner and therefore in that place<br \/>\nshe was promoted.  The impugned order passed by the third respondent in this<br \/>\ncase, is a consequential one to that of the order of the first respondent dated<br \/>\n01.09.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. According to the fourth respondent, the order of the first respondent<br \/>\ndated 01.09.2004 is not affecting the petitioner.  Further according to the<br \/>\nfourth respondent since the appeal decided by the first respondent was only a<br \/>\ndepartmental appeal it does not require any opportunity and the orders were<br \/>\npassed based on the records.  According to the fourth respondent the petitioner<br \/>\nhas studied M.A. in Tamil by postal tution and her basic degree is in<br \/>\nB.A.History.  As per the purport of the said Government orders, since the<br \/>\npetitioner has not passed basic degree in Tamil she shall not be entitled for<br \/>\nthe post of Tamil Pandit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the<br \/>\nlearned counsel appearing for the respondent (3 &amp; 4) as also the learned Special<br \/>\nGovernment Pleader appearing for the respondents(1 &amp; 2).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. At the outset, it has to be pointed that the impugned order of the<br \/>\nthird respondent dated 18.10.2004 under which the petitioner was reverted who<br \/>\nwas promoted by the third respondent as Tamil Pandit  on 03.08.2004 as was<br \/>\napproved by the second respondent dated 01.10.2003, has to the lower post of<br \/>\nsecondary grade teacher based on the order of the first respondent dated<br \/>\n01.09.2004. The said order of the first respondent 01.09.2004 is an order passed<br \/>\nby the first respondent in an appeal filed by the fourth respondent against the<br \/>\norder of  appointment of the petitioner dated 03.08.2002 and  subsequent<br \/>\napproval dated 10.02.2003.  The fact remains that the first respondent while<br \/>\npassing the order on 01.09.2004 which is stated to be a petition preferred by<br \/>\nthe fourth respondent on 19.03.2003 challenging the order of appointment of the<br \/>\npetitioner as Tamil Pandit on 03.08.2002 has not given any opportunity to the<br \/>\npetitioner before passing such order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. It is admitted that the appointment of the petitioner as Tamil Pandit<br \/>\non 03.08.2002 by the third respondent has been approved by the second<br \/>\nrespondent-the District Educational Officer who is the authority to decide about<br \/>\nthe qualifications as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private<br \/>\nSchools (Regulations) Rules on 10.02.2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. As correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner,<br \/>\nthe first respondent while taking up the petition filed by the fourth respondent<br \/>\ndated 19.03.2003 has allowed the said petition on 01.09.2004 holding that the<br \/>\npetitioner was no qualification based on certain Government Orders without even<br \/>\ngiving notice to the petitioner or any opportunity to the petitioner to<br \/>\nsubstantiate her case especially when admittedly the petitioner is working as<br \/>\nTamil Pandit in the third respondent School from 03.08.2002, not only based on<br \/>\nthe order of the third respondent but also the said order having been approved<br \/>\nby the competent authority namely, the second respondent even on 10.02.2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. It is on this score itself the order of the first respondent dated<br \/>\n01.09.2004 has to be set aside as opposed to the basic principles of law and<br \/>\nnatural justice and consequently, the impugned order of the third respondent has<br \/>\nno legal basis.  There is one another circumstance as pointed out by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner that apart from the fact that on the representation<br \/>\nof the fourth respondent dated 19.03.2003, the first respondent has passed the<br \/>\norder on 01.09.2004 without giving opportunity to the petitioner by setting<br \/>\naside the order of the appointment of the petitioner.  Even assuming that the<br \/>\nsaid representation of the fourth respondent dated 19.03.2003 to the first<br \/>\nrespondent is an appeal, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised<br \/>\nPrivate Schools(Regulations) Act namely, 43(1) any appeal ought to have been<br \/>\nfiled within one month from the date of order. In the present case, if the<br \/>\nrepresentation of the fourth respondent dated 19.03.2003 to the first respondent<br \/>\nis taken as an appeal, from the date of  order of appointment of the petitioner<br \/>\nby the third respondent dated 03.08.2002 or from the order of approval granted<br \/>\nby the second respondent dated 10.02.2003 in both the cases the representation<br \/>\nstated to have been filed by the fourth respondent is patently beyond the time<br \/>\nlimit.  The fourth respondent who is also working as a teacher in the same third<br \/>\nrespondent school cannot plead ignorance of the order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. Mr.K.Vellaisamy, learned counsel for the fourth respondent could not<br \/>\ndefend that the fourth respondent has filed the appeal or representation within<br \/>\nthe time stipulated under the Act except to state that it is administrative in<br \/>\ncharacter.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. On the other hand, Mr.K.Vellaisamy, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nfourth respondent would submit that admittedly the petitioner was not given any<br \/>\nopportunity to substantiate her case before the first respondent while, the<br \/>\nfirst respondent was dealing with the appeal by the fourth respondent  on<br \/>\n19.03.2003, the petitioner can avail the opportunity before this Court under<br \/>\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. According to the learned counsel, the concept of natural justice is an<br \/>\nempty formality i the present case and even assuming that the petitioner has got<br \/>\nany right of being heard the same can be exercised by the petitioner in this<br \/>\nwrit petition.  I am unable to agree with the said contention of the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the fourth respondent.  This Court while deciding any issue under<br \/>\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit as an Officer deciding the<br \/>\nissue.    Moreover, the principle denial of natural justice which is complained<br \/>\nby the petitioner is against the conduct of the first respondent who while<br \/>\ndeciding an issue against the petitioner ought to have realised that the basic<br \/>\nprinciples of law is violated when, at the instance of the fourth respondent he<br \/>\nset aside the order of the appointment of the petitioner who has been serving as<br \/>\na Tamil Pandit admittedly from 03.08.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. A perusal of the order of the first respondent dated 01.09.2004 would<br \/>\nshow that it has been passed under a mistaken impression apart from the fact<br \/>\nthat it is violating all the principles of law and natural justice.  The said<br \/>\norder raises about the three Government Orders namely, G.O.Ms.No.930 dated<br \/>\n09.06.1975, G.O.Ms.No.1732 dated 30.08.1980 and G.O.Ms.No.662 dated 13.04.1982.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20. Mr.K.Vellaisamy, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent<br \/>\nwould also submit that those three Government Orders, virtually make the<br \/>\npetitioner ineligible to be appointed as Tamil Pandit.  In this regard, it is<br \/>\nrelevant to point out the qualification required for Tamil Pandit as per the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules Annexure V(5). It<br \/>\nprescribed the following qualification required for the post of Tamil Pandit<br \/>\nnamely,  M.A.,(Tamil) or B.A.(Tamil) or M.O.L.(Tamil) or B.O.L (Tamil) and B.Ed<br \/>\nor B.T or L.T or Secondary Grade Training etc.,  This was amended by<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.125 dated 12.11.2003 by which a new Annexure V-A was introduced.  As<br \/>\nper the said amendment which came into effect from 12.11.2003, the required<br \/>\nqualification for a Tamil Pandit is B.A(Tamil), B.Lit, BOL, and B.Ed etc.,<\/p>\n<p>\t21. In the present case, admittedly the appointment of the petitioner as<br \/>\nTamil Pandit was on 03.08.2002 and the same was approved by the authority under<br \/>\nthe Act namely, the second respondent on 10.02.2003. Therefore, it was before<br \/>\nthe date of the said G.O.Ms.No.125 namely,12.11.2003.  Therefore, at the time<br \/>\nwhen the petitioner was appointed, the qualification required for the post on<br \/>\nTamil Pandit  was M.A.(Tamil) or B.A(Tamil) or MOL(Tamil) or BOL(Tamil) and<br \/>\nB.Ed. At that time, the petitioner having  M.A. in Tamil eventhough she was<br \/>\nhaving B.A. Degree in History was eligible to be fully qualified along with the<br \/>\nB.Ed.  Therefore, it cannot be said that by the subsequent amendment which has<br \/>\ncome into effect only from 12.11.2003 for post of Tamil Pandit B.A(Tamil) is<br \/>\nrequired  which the petitioner is lacking and therefore, she should be<br \/>\ndisqualified.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t22. The contention of the fourth respondent in this regard that the said<br \/>\namendment dated 12.11.2003 should be construed as if it was in existence even<br \/>\nbefore that when the petitioner was appointed is absolutely unsustainable.  Now<br \/>\nif we refer to the order of the first respondent dated 01.09.2004 the same is<br \/>\nnot valid in law as I stated earlier due to the reason that it was passed<br \/>\nwithout giving notice to the petitioner which is also a requirement under<br \/>\nSection 43(3) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools(Regulations) Act.<br \/>\nEven on the basis of the Government orders referred by the first respondent the<br \/>\nsaid order is not sustainable.  The Government order in  G.O.Ms.No.930 dated<br \/>\n09.06.1975 in amended Rule 15 of Tamil Nadu Educational Rules as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Trained graduate teachers who have studied Tamil in their B.A.\/B.Sc.<br \/>\ndegree course above will be appointed as B.T Assistants to teach through Tamil<br \/>\nin non-Government Secondary Schools.  Trained Graduate Teachers who have studied<br \/>\nTelegu, Malayalam, Urdu, Kannada, Hindi, Gujarathi will be appointed as B.T.<br \/>\nAssistants to teach through the respective mediums in schools.  The requirements<br \/>\nwill apply to heads of secondary schools also.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t23. A reference of the said Government order shows apart from that it<br \/>\namends Tamil Nadu Educational Rules it relates to B.T.Assistants and not Tamil<br \/>\nPandits.  Therefore, a reference of the said Government order by the first<br \/>\nrespondent is a misnomer.   Again the reference to another G.O.Ms.No.1732 dated<br \/>\n30.08.1980 would show that it was an amendment to Rule 15 Tamil Nadu Educational<br \/>\nRules it is also relating to B.T.Assistants.  Again another Government order<br \/>\nreferred by the  first respondent in the order 01.09.2004 namely 662 dated<br \/>\n13.04.1982 relates to the appointment of the graduate teachers with B.A.<br \/>\nEconomics qualification.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t24. A reading of the said Government Orders would also show that the said<br \/>\nGovernment Orders have no application on the facts of the case.  Therefore, the<br \/>\nfirst respondent apart from committing  a gross illegality in not even hearing<br \/>\nthe petitioner  also acted against Section 43(3) of Tamil Nadu Recognised<br \/>\nPrivate Schools(Regulations) Act and on the misunderstanding of Government<br \/>\norders referred by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t25. He has relied upon the three Government orders which have absolutely<br \/>\nno relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case at all.  It is<br \/>\nunfortunate that a higher officer like the first respondent has misconstrued<br \/>\neverything for the reasons best known to him.  It is equally understandable as<br \/>\nto how that the order is sought to be justified by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nfourth respondent especially when that order misreads the Government Order and<br \/>\npassed against all norms of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t26.Therefore, even accepting the argument of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nfourth respondent that the petitioner is given an opportunity now before this<br \/>\nCourt to assail the order of the first respondent dated 01.09.2004, in my<br \/>\nconsidered view the fourth respondent has to fail and the order of the first<br \/>\nrespondent dated 01.09.2004 has to necessarily go as the same is opposed to all<br \/>\nnorms and  tenets of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t27. It goes without saying that the consequential impugned order of the<br \/>\nthird respondent has no legal basis whatsoever.  It can never be said that this<br \/>\nCourt cannot decide about the validity of the order of the first respondent<br \/>\ndated 01.09.2004, for the impugned order of the third respondent is only<br \/>\nconsequential.  As the third respondent has correctly pointed out in the counter<br \/>\naffidavit, being the aided School it has no other go than following the order of<br \/>\nthe first respondent.   Therefore, it can never be said the third respondent has<br \/>\nmala fide attitude against the petitioner, since they only implemented the<br \/>\nunlawful order of the first respondent as stated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t28. In view of the same, the impugned order of the third respondent dated<br \/>\n18.10.2004 which is consequential to the order of the first respondent dated<br \/>\n01.09.2004 as also the order of the 1st respondent dated 01.09.2004 are quashed.<br \/>\nThe writ petition stands allowed.  There is no order as to costs. Consequently,<br \/>\nconnected W.P.M.P. and W.V.M.P. are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>sms<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Joint Director of School Education,<br \/>\n  Secondary Education,<br \/>\n  Chennai &#8211; 600 006.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The District Educational Officer,<br \/>\n  Virudhunagar,<br \/>\n  Virudhunagar District.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Correspondent,<br \/>\n  A.V.M.Marimuthu Nadar Higher<br \/>\n  Secondary School,<br \/>\n  Vilampatti Nadar Uravinmuraikku<br \/>\n  Parthiappattathu,<br \/>\n  Vilampatti (Post),<br \/>\n  (Via) Sivakasi.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court T.Selvarani vs The Joint Director Of School &#8230; on 29 March, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29\/03\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.2987 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.No.521 of 2005 and W.V.M.P.No.156 of 2004 T.Selvarani &#8230;. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Joint Director of School Education, Secondary Education, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102226","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>T.Selvarani vs The Joint Director Of School ... on 29 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Selvarani vs The Joint Director Of School ... on 29 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-18T18:23:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Selvarani vs The Joint Director Of School &#8230; on 29 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-18T18:23:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2879,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006\",\"name\":\"T.Selvarani vs The Joint Director Of School ... on 29 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-18T18:23:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Selvarani vs The Joint Director Of School &#8230; on 29 March, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T.Selvarani vs The Joint Director Of School ... on 29 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Selvarani vs The Joint Director Of School ... on 29 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-18T18:23:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Selvarani vs The Joint Director Of School &#8230; on 29 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-18T18:23:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006"},"wordCount":2879,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006","name":"T.Selvarani vs The Joint Director Of School ... on 29 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-18T18:23:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-selvarani-vs-the-joint-director-of-school-on-29-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Selvarani vs The Joint Director Of School &#8230; on 29 March, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102226","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=102226"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102226\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102226"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102226"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102226"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}