Madras High Court
The Director Of Elementary ... vs The Secretary on 1 October, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.604 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 30.06.2022
PRONOUNCED ON: 15.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD).No.604 of 2022 and
CMP(MD).No.5111 of 2022
1.The Director of Elementary Education
College Road, Chennai 600 006
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer
Madurai, Madurai District
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer
Thirunagar
Madurai
...Appellants/Respondents
Vs
The Secretary
Thiagaraja Colony Primary School
Pasumalai
Madurai 625 004 ...Respondent/Writ Petitioner
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters
Patent, to set aside the order dated 01.10.2021 in
WP(MD).No.20770 of 2016.
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.604 of 2022
For Appellants : Mr.S.Shaji Bino
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.P.Muthuvel
For M/s.Isaac Chamber
J U D G M E N T
(Made by R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.)
The respondents in the writ petition are the
appellants herein.
2.The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging
an order passed by the learned Single Judge wherein the
order passed by the respondents rejecting the appointment
of one D.Tamilarasi, a Secondary Grade Teacher, on the
ground that the post for which she has been appointed has
already become a surplus post.
3.The writ petitioner School is an aided non-minority
institution which was established in the year 1959.
According to the writ petitioner, as per norms, the
petitioner School was sanctioned with 1 Headmistress and 5
Secondary Grade Teachers for the academic year 2009-2010.
One of the Secondary Grade Teachers post fell vacant on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.604 of 2022
01.11.2005 due to the promotion of one Tmt.Subbulakshmi as
Headmistress in the School. For filling up the said post,
a proposal was submitted to the District Elementary
Education Officer. The said authority has granted
permission to fill up the said vacancy by his proceedings
dated 09.02.2010. Thereafter, the School has made a paper
publication inviting applications from the eligible
candidates for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher under
O.C.Category. The petitioner School has also sought for
list of eligible candidates from the District Employment
Office, Madurai for conducting a selection process.
4.On 24.03.2010, one D.Tamilarasi was found to be the
most suitable candidate and she was appointed as Secondary
Grade Teacher w.e.f.31.03.2010 and she joined duty on the
same day. The petitioner School had submitted a proposal
to District Elementary Educational Officer for approval of
her appointment and disbursement of grant-in-aid.
5.The petitioner had contended that the District
Elementary Educational Officer had fixed the staff
strength for the academic year 2010-2011 vide proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.604 of 2022
dated 13.12.2010 wherein one post of Secondary Grade
Teacher rendered as surplus. Immediately, the School had
submitted an objection on 28.03.2011 to the Director of
Elementary Education seeking to refix it as six teachers.
6.The petitioner had further contended that all the
teachers were appointed in the sanctioned post after
obtaining a prior permission from the Educational
Authorities. The District Elementary Educational Officer
had passed an order on 30.01.2015, fixing the staff
strength of the School as four teachers for the academic
year 2014-2015. Finally, the Director passed an order on
28.03.2011 rejecting the petitioner's request seeking
approval for appointment of the said Tamilarasi on the
ground that as per the available student strength, the
School is only eligible to have only one Headmistress + 3
Secondary Grade Teachers and the appointment of
D.Tamilarasi in the 5th place cannot be approved for want
of post. The said order was challenged in the writ
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.604 of 2022
7.Before the learned Single Judge, the learned
Government Advocate had contended that though the
appointment of Tamilarasi was made on 31.03.2010, the
proposal for approval was sent by the School only on
21.06.2010 i.e., during the next academic year 2010-2011.
The student strength had fallen down in the academic year
2010-2011 and hence, one of the Secondary Grade Teachers
had been rendered as surplus and the request of the
petitioner School for approval of the appointment of
Tamilarasi could not be considered.
8.The learned Government Advocate had further
contended that though permission was granted for filling
up the post and appointment orders were made for the
academic year 2009-2010, the request for approval was
received only in the next academic year namely 2010-2011
in which the students strength had fallen down. Hence, the
School will not be entitled to get approval for
appointment of the said Tamilarasi.
9.The learned Single Judge after considering the
submissions made on either side, referred to various
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.604 of 2022
judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the writ petitioner and arrived at a finding that the
status of a person appointed earlier on 31.03.2010 and the
rights or benefits accrued to the teachers or the
management cannot be deprived on the basis of an event
that happened much later and the date of application of
proposal for approval may not have any relevance or
affects the rights of the teacher, who got appointment on
31.03.2010. The learned Single Judge had further held that
the approval appointment is a procedure to be followed
after the appointment and the approval makes the
appointment valid with effect from the date of
appointment. However, the learned Single Judge further
held that the appointment has to be approved by the
Educational Authorities whether she is rendered surplus
for the subsequent academic year or not. The learned
Single Judge has directed to disburse the grant-in-aid in
favour of D.Tamilarasi with effect from the date of her
appointment namely 31.03.2010 and other attendant monetary
benefits. The said order is under challenge in the Writ
Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.604 of 2022
10.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing
for the appellants/Educational Authorities had contended
that though the said Tamilarasi was appointed on
31.03.2010 namely in the academic year 2009-2010, the
approval sought for by the School was made only on
21.06.2010 namely in the next academic year 2010-2011. The
learned Special Government Pleader had further contended
that when a proposal to approve the appointment is
received for the academic year 2010-2011, the same has to
be considered only based upon the staff fixation for the
academic year 2010-2011 and the same cannot be considered
in the light of the previous academic year namely
2009-2010. He had further contended that though the School
was eligible to have 5 Secondary Grade Teachers for the
academic year 2009-2010, it got reduced to 4 in the next
academic year namely 2010-2011. Hence, when the proposal
for approval was considered by the Educational
Authorities, one Secondary Grade Teacher has already been
rendered surplus and hence, the appointment of
D.Tamilarasi could not be approved in view of the legal
impediment. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.604 of 2022
11.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
had contended that the School had appointed the said
Tamilarasi only after obtaining prior permission from the
District Elementary Educational Officer on 08.02.2010.
Hence, the Educational Authorities cannot be heard to
contend that the said appointment is in a surplus post. He
had further contended that whether a particular post is
surplus or not, has to be considered only based upon the
date of appointment and not based upon the date on which a
proposal is received by the authorities for approval. In
case, if the appointment is considered to be a surplus for
the next academic year, the authorities can very well
redeploy the appointee, but they have no power to reject
the approval which was made during the eligible academic
year. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.
12.We have considered the submissions made on the
side of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing
for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.604 of 2022
13.As per the staff fixation order dated 20.01.2010
for the academic year 2009-2010, the petitioner School was
eligible to have 5 Secondary Grade Teachers. The
petitioner School has approached the District Elementary
Educational Officer seeking permission for appointment of
a Secondary Grade Teacher in the vacancy created by
promotion of one Secondary Grade Teacher by name
Tmt.K.Subbulakshmi. The Educational Authorities have
granted permission for the same on 09.02.2010. A paper
publication has been made for selection of the eligible
candidates and thereafter, one D.Tamilarasi was appointed
as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 31.03.2010. After
verifying the original certificates, the School had sent a
proposal for approval to the authorities on 21.06.2010.
The said request for approval was rejected in the impugned
order dated 11.08.2016 on the ground that the students
strength had come down in the academic year 2010-2011.
Pursuant to the lesser student strength for the academic
year 2010-2011, the Secondary Grade Teacher posts were
reduced from 5 to 4 resulting in rendering of one
Secondary Grade Teacher post as surplus.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.604 of 2022
14.The issue that arises for consideration is what is
the crucial date for deciding the surplus post in a
particular School for approval of any appointment. In the
present case, admittedly, the appointment order has been
issued on 31.03.2010 falling in the academic year
2009-2010. The proposal for approval has been sent by the
School to the Educational Authorities on 21.06.2010
falling under the next academic year 2010-2011. As rightly
held by the learned Single Judge, any approval for
appointment relates back to the date of original
appointment. Status of the appointee has to be considered
only on the date of appointment and not on the date on
which the approval is being sought for. That apart, the
crucial cut off date for fixing the students strength and
to decide the surplus teacher is the month of August of
every year. In the present case, the approval for
appointment of Tamilarasi has reached the Educational
Authorities on 21.06.2010 much before August 2010. That
apart, the staff fixation order for the academic year
2010-2011 has been passed only on 13.12.2010 i.e.
6 months after proposal was received by the Educational
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.604 of 2022
Authorities. Therefore, it is clear that the authorities
have kept the approval application pending for nearly six
months and thereafter, attempted to hold that the
petitioner School is entitled to only 4 Secondary Grade
Teachers.
15.When the appointment and the approval application
were submitted during the non-surplus period, the
Educational Authorities cannot contend that a particular
post had been rendered as surplus six months thereafter.
Hence, the learned Single Judge was right in directing the
Educational Authorities to approve the appointment of
Tamilarasi in the petitioner School w.e.f.31.03.2010. The
learned Single Judge has given liberty to the authorities
to consider whether the post has been rendered surplus in
the subsequent academic year or not. However, the said
portion of the order has not been challenged before this
Court.
16.In view of the above said discussions, we do not
find any infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by
the learned Single Judge and the Writ Appeal is devoid of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.604 of 2022
any merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.N.P.J.,) (R.V.J.,)
15.07.2022
Index :yes
Internet :yes
msa
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education
College Road, Chennai 600 006
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer
Madurai, Madurai District
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer
Thirunagar
Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.604 of 2022
P.N.PRAKASH,J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
msa
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
W.A(MD).No.604 of 2022 and
CMP(MD).No.5111 of 2022
15.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
