Madras High Court
V.Mahalakshmi vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 16 July, 2021
W.P.No.2503 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.2503 of 2020
and
W.M.P.No.2909 of 2020
V.Mahalakshmi ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Kallakurichi,
Villupuram District.
4.The Block Educational Officer,
Chinnasalem,
Villupuram District.
5.The Secretary,
Azath Middle School,
Mettupalayam, Chinnasalem Union,
Chinnasalem Taluk, Villupuram District. ...Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2503 of 2020
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 1 st respondent in
Na.Ka.No.020973/H2/2019 dated 03.01.2020 and to quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents 1 to 4 to approve the appointment
of petitioner in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in 5th respondent
school from the date of appointment on 17.10.2018, with all
consequential and other attendant benefits, within a time frame.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
Government Counsel
for R1 to R4
ORDER
By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for
final disposal.
2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a Secondary Grade
Teacher in the fifth respondent Aided Minority School, in the vacancy
that arose due to the retirement of one Tmt.C.Poongodi on 31.05.2018
after her period of re-employment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2503 of 2020
3. When the fifth respondent herein had sought for approval of
appointment of the petitioner herein as Secondary Grade Teacher, the
third respondent/District Educational Officer, Villupuram District had, by
order dated 17.05.2019, rejected the approval application of the
petitioner on the ground that, there are surplus teachers working in other
schools and based on the instructions of the first respondent/Director of
Elementary Education, no new appointments can be granted. In the mean
time, the petitioner herein had filed W.P.No.12004 of 2019, seeking
approval of her appointment and this Court, by order dated 03.09.2019,
had directed the first respondent to dispose of the proposal of the school
management. Subsequent to the orders passed in the said writ petition,
the first respondent had passed the impugned order dated 03.01.2020,
stating that there are 154 students studying 1st to 5th Standard in the fifth
respondent school and based on the students strength, only 5 posts were
allowed to continue in the said post and the petitioner's post was
considered as surplus.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action
of the respondents in rejecting the request for approval of appointment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2503 of 2020
the petitioner is opposed to Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu Private School
Regulation Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed
reliance on various decisions rendered by this Court, including the
decision in the case of S.Rasheetha Banu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.
by its Secretary to Government, Chennai and others, reported in (2012)
4 MLJ 198.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Counsel appearing
for the respondents 1 to 4 placed reliance on the counter statements and
submitted that the said post in the fifth respondent School has been
rendered as surplus and only five posts were allowed to be retained, by
taking into account of the students-teacher ratio. Hence, approval to the
said post cannot be granted in view of the fall in the students strength.
6. The issued involved in the present writ petition as to the
correctness of the decision of the authorities in rejecting the approval
petition on the ground that the fall in the students strength, has came up
for consideration on various occasions and in one of the decisions before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2503 of 2020
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1263 of 2001, dated
22.01.2004, it was held that, whenever there is a fall in the strength of the
students, the approval petition cannot be rejected, but requires to be
approved by transferring the said teacher or deploying them to a needy
school. The decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench was relied upon by a
learned Single Judge in the case of S.Rasheetha (supra) and the relevant
portion of the findings, reads as follows:
"6.The issue to be decided in this Writ Petition is as to
whether the petitioner was appointed in a sanctioned
post. Admittedly, on 01.04.1998, the post of Secondary
Grade Teacher became vacant and the petitioner was
appointed in the sanctioned post. The only objection
raised is that the fifth respondent school was not
declared as a Minority Institution. On a perusal of
the records, it is seen that the Civil Suit filed by the
fifth respondent school was dismissed and the
Judgment and Decree passed by the Lower Court was
reversed in the appeal filed by the fifth respondent
school, which was confirmed in the said Second
Appeal filed by the department. The Government also
sanctioned arrears of salary payable to the petitioner.
The fall in strength of the students took place in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2503 of 2020
year 2003-2004, which cannot be a ground to reject
the approval of appointment of the petitioner from
01.04.1998.
7.The issue involved in this Writ Petition was
already considered by a Division Bench of this Court
in W.A.No.1263 of 2001, dated 22.01.2004. In the
said Judgment, it is held that if a person is appointed
in a sanctioned post, the approval of appointment
cannot be rejected and if there is fall in strength and
the post become surplus, after granting approval of
the post, the said teacher along with post could be
transferred/deployed to a needy school. The said
Judgment of the Division Bench was followed in
W.P.(MD).No.11353 of 2008 dated 11.09.2009. As
against the said order dated 11.09.2009, the
department preferred W.A.(MD).No.703 of 2009. A
Division Bench of this Court, by Judgment dated
01.02.2011, dismissed the said Writ Appeal."
7. The aforesaid ratio is a reiteration of Section 26 of the Tamil
Nadu Recognized School Regulation Act, which reads as follows:
“26.Absorption of Teachers or other persons on
retrenchment.- Where any retrenchment of any Teacher
or other person employed in any private school is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2503 of 2020
rendered necessary consequent on any order of the
Government relating to education or course of
instruction or to any other matter, [or consequent on the
reduction in strength of the pupil’s studying in any such
private school] it shall be competent for the Government
or the School Committee of any private school to appoint
such Teacher or other person in any school or institution
maintained by the Government or in such private school,
as the case may be.
[Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, the
strength of the pupil’s shall be determined in accordance
with the norms fixed in the Grant-in-Aid Code of the
Tamil Nadu Education Department or under any Rule,
Regulation or other as may be made or issued by the
Government or the Director of School Education, from
time to time, for appointment of Teachers or others in
any private school].
8. A combined reading of Rule 26 of the Act, with the decisions of
this Court, particularly in the case of S.Rasheetha (supra) as extracted
above, lays down the proposition that, even in cases when there is a fall
in the students strength and the post of Secondary Grade Teachers are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2503 of 2020
rendered as surplus, the authorities are bound to grant approval for the
appointments made to such teachers, who are absorbed in the approved
vacancies and thereafter, either transfer them or re-deploy them to other
needy schools. The official respondents have deviated from this legal
proposition in the impugned order by rejecting the request for approval
of appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher. As such,
the impugned rejection order cannot be sustained.
9. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned order dated
03.01.2020 passed by the first respondent herein is quashed.
Consequently, the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to grant approval of
appointment to the petitioner herein from the date of her appointment and
thereafter, if the authorities are still of the view that there are surplus
teacher posts in the fifth respondent School, they shall re-deploy the
petitioner herein to such needy schools, where her services may be
required. The respondents shall endeavor to grant the approval order, as
expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2503 of 2020
10. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
hvk
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Kallakurichi,
Villupuram District.
4.The Block Educational Officer,
Chinnasalem,
Villupuram District.
5.The Secretary,
Azath Middle School,
Mettupalayam, Chinnasalem Union,
Chinnasalem Taluk, Villupuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2503 of 2020
M.S.RAMESH,J.
hvk
W.P.No.2503 of 2020
and
W.M.P.No.2909 of 2020
16.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
