Madras High Court
J.Sam Jeya Vimalan vs The District Educational Officer on 17 April, 2023
W.P.(MD).No.8755 of 2023
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD).No.8755 of 2023
J.Sam Jeya Vimalan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Educational Officer,
O/o. Valliyoor District Educational Officer,
Valliyoor,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Block Educational Officer,
O/o.the Block Educational Office,
Radhapuram,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records in regard to the impugned order of return made by the 1st respondent in
O.Mu.No.175/AA2/2023 dated 14.02.2023 and quash the same and
consequently directing the 1st respondent to grant approval of appointment of
Mr.S.Kingston in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and pay the salary from
the date of initial appointment ie., on 01.06.2019 within the time limit that may
be stipulated by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.(MD).No.8755 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sankar
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar,
Additional Government Pleader.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.02.2023 with a
consequential direction to the 1st respondent to grant approval of appointment
of Mr.S.Kingston in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and pay the salary
from the date of initial appointment i.e., on 01.06.2019.
2. The petitioner was appointed in the Caldwell Primary School, which is
a Non-Minority Private Aided School. The post of Secondary Grade Teacher
became vacant due to retirement of the incumbent. The said School sought for
permission to fill up the said vacancy to the Block Educational Officer, the 2nd
respondent herein, who in turn recommended to the first respondent to grant
prior permission to fill up the post of Secondary Grade Teacher vide
proceedings dated 23.04.2019. Based on the recommendations, the school had
appointed the petitioner, since the petitioner is having qualification including
TET. Inspite of recommendations the 1st respondent had declined the approval
and hence the present petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.8755 of 2023
3. The said contention was refuted by the respondents by stating that the
proceedings of the Block Educational Officer dated 23.04.2019 states that the
proposal is being forwarded. The forwarded proposal of the Block Educational
Officer cannot be considered as recommendation. The relevant portion of the
forwarded proposal is extracted hereunder:
jiyikahrphpaUk; ,ilepiy MrphpaUk; gzpg[hpe;J te;jdh;.
31.03.2019 gpw;gfypy; 1 ,ilepiy Mrphpah;
Xa;t[ bgw;Wtpl;lhh;. Mifahy; 01.04.2019 Kjy;
1 ,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpaplk; fhyp Vw;gl;ljhy;
me;j ,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpaplj;jpy;
bghJg;gphpt[ ,dj;ijf; bfhz;L epakpj;Jf;bfhs;s mDkjp
tHq;Fk;go fUj;JUf;fs; ,j;Jld; ,izj;J gzpe;J
mDg;gg;gLfpwJ.”
4. On perusal of this, this Court if of the considered opinion that the
Block Educational Officer has only forwarded the proposal to the District
Educational Officer. The District Educational Officer is the authority to grant
permission. The said proceedings cannot be considered as granting approval to
fill up the post. Based on this, the petitioner cannot claim that the respondents
have already granted prior approval. Since the School being the non-minority,
the School is bound to get prior permission from the official respondents to fill
up the post. The School was not granted any prior permission. Without getting
prior permission, the said S.Kingston was appointed. Therefore, the petitioner
cannot claim to approve the appointment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.8755 of 2023
5. The next contention that was raised by the petitioner is that already
learned Single Judge of this Court considered the case similar to the present
case and pass orders vide judgment dated 30.03.2022. On perusal of the
judgment, learned Single Judge has not referred the detailed judgment rendered
by the Hon’ble Division Bench passed in W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019. Therefore,
the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be followed. In W.A.(MD)No.76
of 2019, the Hon'ble Division Bench has specifically held that if there is any
vacancy, especially in the Secondary Grade post, the said post shall be filled up
by transferring or deploying any surplus teacher from another aided school.
Therefore, the School appointed the petitioner without prior permission which
is in violation as per Tamil Nadu Private School Regulations Act and Rules.
Therefore, the approval of appointment cannot be considered.
6. The next contention of the petitioner is that as per Tamil Nadu Private
School Regulations Act and Rules, prior permission is not necessary to fill up
the vacant post which is already sanctioned. The said plea cannot be accepted
since under Rule 6 of the Grant-in-Aid Code it has been stated that the aid shall
be paid based on approval. If approval is not granted, then the Government is
not bound to pay any grant. More so, there are more than 6000 surplus
Secondary Grade Teacher working in the State and the Government is incurring
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.8755 of 2023
expenditure in crores as salary for every month. Moreover, the claim of the
petitioner is against the order passed in the W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019, hence the
approval cannot be granted.
7. Having said so that the approval cannot be granted, the respondents
are at liberty to deploy any surplus teacher in the said vacant place. With the
above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
17.04.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Nsr
To
1.The District Educational Officer,
O/o. Valliyoor District Educational Officer,
Valliyoor,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Block Educational Officer,
O/o.the Block Educational Office,
Radhapuram,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.8755 of 2023
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Nsr
W.P.(MD).No.8755 of 2023
17.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
