Madras High Court
D.Sonia Gandhi vs The Chief Educational Officer on 4 August, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.8943 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
WP(MD)No.8943 of 2020
D.Sonia Gandhi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.
3. The Block Educational Officer,
Alangulam Range, Tenkasi District.
4. The Correspondent,
TDTA Middle School,
Puthupatti, Alangulam Range,
Tenkasi District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to
3 herein to implement proceedings dated 04.12.2019 of the Hon'ble
Administrators and approve the appointment of petitioner as BT
Assistant (English) in the 4th respondent school with effect from
26.11.2015 with all other attended benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/9
W.P.(MD)No.8943 of 2020
For R1 to R3 : Mr.B.Saravanan, GA
For R4 : Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai
ORDER
The relief sought in this writ petition is to issue a mandamus
directing the respondents 1 to 3 to implement the proceedings dated
04.12.2019 passed by the learned Administrators and approve the
appointment of the petitioner as BT Assistant (English) in the fourth
respondent school with effect from 26.11.2015 with all other attendant
benefits.
2.According to the petitioner, she was selected and appointed as a
BT Assistant (English) in the fourth respondent school on 26.11.2015
against the sanctioned post, which fell vacant on account of
superannuation of one S.Lilly Pushpam Ponnammal. Subsequently, the
fourth respondent sent a proposal to the second respondent seeking
approval of the said appointment through the third respondent. However,
the said proposal was returned on 01.10.2016 by the second respondent
on the ground that there are surplus teachers working in the TDTA
corporate management. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to
the learned Administrators, who after having conducted enquiry, directed
the respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appointment of the petitioner with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8943 of 2020
effect from 26.11.2015 and release her salary within a period of two
weeks, by proceedings dated 04.12.2019. Pursuant to the same, the
fourth respondent sent a proposal to the respondent authorities requesting
to approve the appointment of the petitioner and release salary. Finding
no response on the same, the petitioner has come up with this writ
petition for the aforesaid relief.
3.Upon notice, the second respondent filed a detailed counter
affidavit, wherein, it is inter alia stated that the main ground for rejection
of the approval of the petitioner's appointment was that there are surplus
teachers working in some other schools functioning under the TDTA
Tirunelveli Diocese Management. It is further stated by this respondent
that the approval power is always vested with the second respondent
alone and hence, the petitioner cannot rely on the order of the
Administrators to substantiate her claim seeking approval. It is also
stated that the respondents have periodically issued instructions to all the
private schools not to make fresh appointment when surplus teachers are
still working within the same management and without following the
same, the fourth respondent school has filled up the vacant post by way
of fresh appointment, which causes unnecessary financial burden on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8943 of 2020
state Government. Thus, according to this respondent, the writ petition is
not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4.Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this
court.
5.The facts remain undisputed are that the petitioner was
appointed as BT Assistant (English) in the fourth respondent school on
26.11.2015 against sanctioned post, which fell vacant on account of
superannuation of one S.Lilly Pushpam Ponnammal. However, the said
appointment was not approved by the second respondent on the ground
that there are surplus teachers working in the TDTA corporate
management. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition before the
Administrators appointed by this court. By proceedings dated
04.12.2019, the Administrators directed the respondent authorities to
approve the appointment of the petitioner and release salary within a
period of two weeks. Even thereafter, the claim of the petitioner was not
considered.
6.From a perusal of the documents enclosed in the typed set of
papers, more particularly, the proceedings passed by the Administrators
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8943 of 2020
appointed by this court, it is seen that the Educational authorities
returned the papers seeking approval of the petitioner's appointment to
the management directing them to complete the deployment process and
till such time, no fresh appointment is to be made. However, in the
subsequent proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1335/E1/2018 dated 26.06.2019,
the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, after taking note of the
detailed report submitted by the management in the year 2018-19, with
regard to deployment, granted approval for the appointments made by the
management. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was appointed as BT
Assistant (English) against the sanctioned post in TDTA Middle School,
Pudhupatti, after deployment of teachers of 323 schools in the TDTA
Management Primary and Middle Schools. Further, there was no rival
claim in respect of the said appointment. The Administrators also took
note of the judgment dated 17.06.2015 passed by a Division Bench of
this court in WA(MD)No.639 of 2015 etc. batch, wherein the
Educational authorities were directed to pass orders on the proposal sent
by the concerned Correspondent of TDTA Middle School seeking
approval of the similar appointment made by them. Considering all these
factors, the Administrators were of the view that upon completion of the
deployment process, the management has appointed the petitioner in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8943 of 2020
sanctioned vacancy and hence, the same has to be approved by the
respondent authorities. Therefore, the Administrators have rightly
directed the respondent authorities to approve the appointment of the
petitioner from the date of her appointment and release salary to her.
7.At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that the issues relating to
the process of staff strength ratio, identification of excess staff,
deployment of excess staff to the needy school, etc., were determined by
a Division Bench of this court in WA(MD)No.76 of 2019 etc. batch on
31.03.2021, paragraph 95(v) of which, reads as follows:
“Like that insofar as aided minority institutions are
concerned, if it is a stand alone institution, their right of
appointing a teacher in a vacancy within the sanctioned
strength for the academic year 2021-22 shall not be affected
because of the identified excess teachers in other schools. At
the same time, even if the school is a minority institution,
however being administered by a joint management or
corporate management, in respect of those schools, even
though vacancy arose within the sanctioned strength of such
school or schools under corporate management or joint
management, those vacancies shall not be filled up unless
the excess staff identified in all other schools under the
same corporate or joint management are exhausted fully and
only after exhausting the redeployment process on all excess
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8943 of 2020
teachers identified in the group of schools under the same
corporate management, they shall be free to make
appointment afresh from open market in the vacancy if any
still, within the sanctioned strength”.
8.Applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment to the
facts of the present case, wherein, the management has appointed the
petitioner in the sanctioned post, after completing the deployment
process and also pursuant to the approval granted by the Chief
Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, by his proceedings dated 26.06.2019,
this court has no hesitation to hold that the respondent authorities have to
comply with the direction issued by the Administrators in their
proceedings dated 04.12.2019. Accordingly, they are directed to approve
the appointment of the petitioner as BT Assistant (English) from the date
of her appointment by passing orders on the proposal submitted by the
fourth respondent school and sanction salary and all other benefits to her,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
9.With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed
of. No costs.
04.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8943 of 2020
Internet : Yes/No
rk
To
1. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.
3. The Block Educational Officer,
Alangulam Range, Tenkasi District.
4. The Correspondent,
TDTA Middle School,
Puthupatti, Alangulam Range,
Tenkasi District.
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
rk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8943 of 2020
WP(MD)No.8943 of 2020
04.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
