Madras High Court

R.Renuga Devi vs The Chief Educational Officer on 4 August, 2021

W.P.(MD)No.6330 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.6330 of 2020

R.Renuga Devi ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

2. The District Educational Officer,
Vallioor Educational District,
Vallioor, Tirunelveli District.

3. The Block Educational Officer,
Radhapuram Range, Radhapuram,
Tirunelveli District.

4. The Correspondent,
TDTA Primary School,
Chithamparapuram, Radhapuram Range,
Tirunelveli 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 23.11.2019 of the Hon'ble
Administrators and approve the appointment of petitioner as Secondary
Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school with effect from 05.12.2014
with all other attended benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/9
W.P.(MD)No.6330 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

23.11.2019 passed by the learned Administrators and approve the

appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth

respondent school with effect from 05.12.2014 with all other attendant

benefits.

2.According to the petitioner, she was selected and appointed as

Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent school on 05.12.2014

against the sanctioned post, which fell vacant on account of transfer of

one Victoria. 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 01.09.2017

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 effect from 05.12.2014 and release her https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.(MD)No.6330 of 2020

salary within a period of two weeks, by proceedings dated 23.11.2019.

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

state Government. Thus, according to this respondent, the writ petition is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.(MD)No.6330 of 2020

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 Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent school

on 05.12.2014 against sanctioned post, which fell vacant on account of

transfer of one Victoria. 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 23.11.2019, 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.6330 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

Secondary Grade Teacher against the sanctioned post in TDTA Primary

School, Chidambarapuram, 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.6330 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.6330 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 23.11.2019. Accordingly, they are directed to approve

the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher 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