Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 53322 (MAD)

A. v. Srinivasan VS State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of School Education

2026-06-04

P T Asha

body2026
ORDER : P.T. ASHA, J. This writ petition is filed for the following relief: “To direct the respondents 1 to 4, to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.35, School Education Department, dated 09.02.2007 to the petitioners by regularising their services as Vocational Instructors Grade - II and fixing them in the time scale of pay with all attendant service and monetary benefits from the date of their respective initial appointments.” 2. The petitioners are working as Vocational Instructors in Government and Aided Schools. They were appointed by Parent Teacher Association and Aided School Managements in the years, 1996 to 2007 and are in service till date. 3. The petitioners possess either a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering or Electrical Engineering, or a Degree of B.Com / M.Com, which are the requisite qualifications for the post of Vocational Instructor Grade - II as prescribed under the applicable rules and the Government Order. Despite their long and continuous service, the petitioners are receiving a paltry sum of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month from the PTA Fund / School Management Fund, which is wholly insufficient for their livelihood and is no way commensurate with the nature of work performed by them. 4. The case of the petitioners is that the Government had passed the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.35, School Education Department, dated 09.02.2007, granting permission to regularise fully qualified part time Vocational Instructors appointed on temporary basis and to bring them under regular time scale of pay on a priority basis. The said GO is a beneficial order issued in recognition of the long and continuous service rendered by qualified part time vocational instructors. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that their regularisation as Vocational Instructor Grade – II was kept in abeyance even after repeated certificate verification. Therefore, the petitioners made a representation dated 20.03.2026 to respondents, requesting them to consider their case and to extend the benefit of GO.Ms.No.35. Since there is no response, the petitioners are before this Court with the aforesaid relief. 6. Therefore, the petitioners made a representation dated 20.03.2026 to respondents, requesting them to consider their case and to extend the benefit of GO.Ms.No.35. Since there is no response, the petitioners are before this Court with the aforesaid relief. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioners’ representation dated 20.03.2026 has not been considered, without going into the merits of the petitioners’ claim, a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.