(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the impugned orders passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka. No.0206/ Aa1/ 2023 dated 27.04.2023 and in O.Mu.0206/ (Aa1) Aa4/ 2022, dated 05.05.2025 and quash the same and direct the third respondent to disburse arrears of salary to the petitioner by revising the scale of pay of the petitioner, by implementing the order passed in Na.Ka.No.1770/A2/ 2022 dated 04.07.2022 within the time frame fixed by this Court.)

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

                          “calling for the entire records connected with the impugned orders passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka. No.0206/ Aa1/ 2023 dated 27.04.2023 and in O.Mu.0206/ (Aa1) Aa4/ 2022, dated 05.05.2025 and quash the same and direct the third respondent to disburse arrears of salary to the petitioner by revising the scale of pay of the petitioner, by implementing the order passed in Na.Ka.No.1770/A2/ 2022 dated 04.07.2022 within the time frame fixed by this Court.”

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 5th respondent aided non-minority school on 25.02.1999 against a Scheduled Caste roster vacancy. His appointment was not initially approved on the ground that higher qualified teacher cannot be appointed in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as per G.O.Ms.No.559, dated 11.07.1995. However, subsequently, the Government issued various orders permitting such appointments and granting approval from the date of initial appointment. In this regard, one Varadarajan, a similarly placed Secondary Grade Teacher of Ramakrishna Aided Middle School, challenged the prospective approval of his appointment effective 29.07.2003, instead of 28.03.1998, being his initial date of appointment, in W.P. (MD). No.9072 of 2005, and the Madurai Bench of this Court, by order dated 19.12.2007, directed approval of his appointment from the date of initial appointment. The said order was upheld in writ appeal and eventually by the Supreme Court and was implemented by the Department. Relying upon the said decision, the petitioner sought similar treatment. Though his claim was initially rejected, this Court, by order dated 30.10.2015 in W.P.No.34716 of 2015, set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the third respondent, by proceedings dated 04.07.2022, approved the petitioner’s appointment with effect from 25.02.1999 and fixed the revised scale of pay. However, without extending the consequential benefits, the third respondent, subsequently rejected the petitioner’s claim by proceedings dated 27.04.2023 and reiterated the same by proceedings dated 05.05.2025. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The petitioner had been appointed in the fifth respondent school in the vacancy of the Secondary Grade Teacher against the Scheduled Caste roster after following due procedure on 25.02.1999. The fifth respondent school had thereafter submitted the proposal to the third respondent to approve the appointment on 10.09.1999. On account of the failure to grant the approval, various writ petitions and writ appeals came to be filed. Ultimately, the fourth respondent, vide letter dated 12.06.2014, recommended to the third respondent that approval be granted for the appointment of the petitioner. However, by order dated 17.11.2014, the third respondent had rejected the proposal for approving the appointment of the petitioner. This has been challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.34716 of 2015 and this Court vide order dated 30.10.2015, had passed the following order:

                          “5. This Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1955/A3/2014 dated 17.11.2014 passed by the third respondent is set aside and the matter is, once again remanded back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration in the light of the order passed in the writ petition as well as the recommendation of the 4th respondent dated 24.07.2014. The 3rd respondent is directed to complete the above said exercise and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner.

                          1. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.”

4. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.34 School Education Department dated 15.02.2017, bringing the petitioner under the Old Pension Scheme. Subsequent thereto, by proceedings dated 04.07.2022, the third respondent had passed the following order :



5. The pay was also refixed with effect from taking into account the petitioner’s service from 25.02.1999. However, the order remained only on paper. This has constrained the petitioner to cause issuance of a notice by his counsel followed by filing of W.P.No.4483 of 2023, to disburse the arrears of salary to the petitioner and refix the scale of pay by implementing the order of the third respondent dated 04.07.2022. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to pass orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The third respondent, who has passed the order refixing the pay on 04.07.2022, has by proceedings dated 27.04.2023 and 05.05.2025 rejected the request for refixation.

6. Interestingly, the third respondent has not referred to his earlier order dated 04.07.2022. Having passed such an order, pursuant to orders of this Court, the third respondent has proceeded to pass these orders. The third respondent, by passing these orders, has clearly committed a contumacious act by violating the orders of this Court in W.P.No.34716 of 2015 as also in W.P.No.4483 of 2023. The conduct of the third respondent clearly goes to show that he has scant regard or respect for the orders of this Court which have attained finality and which have originally been accepted by him and orders of refixation passed. Therefore, the impugned orders are in violation of the earlier order dated 30.10.2015 passed by this Court.

7. The impugned orders passed by the third respondent is deprecatory and are in violation of the earlier orders passed by this Court as well as his own order dated 04.07.2022. The third respondent has not only wasted the judicial time of this Court, but has also caused loss to the State exchequer. Accordingly, they are quashed and the third respondent shall report compliance before this Court on or before 15.09.2026.

8. Post the matter on 15.09.2026 for reporting compliance.

9. In the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.