When revoking the Mandamus order at the petitioner's request, the Madras High Court clarified that issuing a mandamus under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is only possible when the petitioner can definitively and simultaneously prove both the existence of a fundamental right and its violation by the State.

In a judgment rendered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Justice R. Vijayakumar, it was observed that the respondent, who had filed a rejoinder in this case back in 2014, has convincingly demonstrated that the petitioner approached the Court with questionable motives. The petitioner, who also served as a Panchayat Councilor, was evidently unsuitable for holding a government position. Furthermore, the petitioner not only concealed this fact but also had the audacity to assert that the school should have, at most, issued a show cause notice, which they did not. The court acknowledged these improprieties and engaged in the process of calculating the sitting fee earned by the petitioner, subsequently deducting it from the benefits owed to the school. All of this was based on contentious facts and documents.

In this case, the respondent filed a lawsuit against the petitioner, asserting that they had worked as a PG Assistant (Political Science) teacher at the school for several years but had not received any salary for their services. The Single Judge issued a Mandamus order instructing the petitioner to provide all the financial benefits to the respondent for those years. The respondent argued that there were only five available positions for the PG Assistant (Political Science) teacher role, and they had not filled any of these vacancies. Consequently, the petitioner appealed to the Division Bench, seeking relief from the writ issued by the Single Judge.

Upon a thorough examination of the submissions, the Bench observed that there were numerous disputed facts, and among the multitude of contested details in this case, a critical point emerged: there was no discernible distinction between the appointment letters issued to K. Vijayakumaran for the position of Headmaster and the letter issued to N. Nalinakumaran for the role of PG Assistant (Political Science) teacher.

The Bench made the following observation: "The writ Court is empowered to issue a mandamus to the petitioner, instructing them to address the representation of the writ petitioner in accordance with the principles of natural justice. This procedure can help resolve and clarify all discrepancies and disputes in the factual aspects of the case." Additionally, the Bench noted that the school had not specifically contested the validity of the appointment order held by the writ petitioner.

The Bench further commented, "While the validity of that order has indeed been a point of contention from the outset, it's noteworthy that the school has not explicitly refuted the authenticity of the signature on the order or claimed that it was forged."

The Bench also noted that there was a dispute regarding the rightful manager or correspondent for the schools previously administered by Sahadevan Nair, which includes the schools where the petitioner alleges to have provided services.

The High Court emphasized that although counsel had orally mentioned that legal disputes among the relatives of Sahadevan Nair had reached the Supreme Court and were resolved in favor of his nieces who now manage the schools, the court was not aware of these details and, in any case, considered them irrelevant to the current matter.

As a result, the High Court granted the petition.

Case: The Manager, Government Aided Secondary School v. N. Nalina Kumar and Ors, W.A.(MD)Nos.745 of 2015 & 1216 of 2017.