Madras High Court
The Chief Educational Officer vs Mangapuram Hindu Higher ... on 27 September, 2023
W.A(MD).No.1631 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A(MD).Nos.1631 to 1633 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD).Nos.12615 to 12617 of 2023
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Virudhunagar.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Srivilliputhur-626 125,
Virudhunagar District. ... Appellants in all appeals
Vs.
Mangapuram Hindu Higher Secondary School,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District,
Through its Secretary. ... Respondent in all appeals
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent
against the orders dated 18.10.2022 made in W.P(MD).Nos.11448 to 11450 of
2022 by this Court.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.1631 of 2023
In all appeals
For Appellants : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Kannan
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)
These Writ Appeals are directed against the orders of the learned Single
Judge dated 18.10.2022 made in W.P(MD).Nos.11448 to 11450 of 2022.
2. By the said orders, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions
filed by the respondent herein on the following terms:
“3. I went through the contents of the impugned order. I am
not able to appreciate the stand taken by the first respondent. If
there is a sanctioned post and if there is requisite student strength,
then obviously the said vacancy must be filled up. Of course, there
is merit in the contention of the learned Special Government
Pleader that such a vacancy should first be allowed to be filled up
by redeploying surplus teacher from elsewhere. But then, the
petitioner's counsel would point out that for the last three years and
above, the vacancy in question is remaining unfilled. This would
obviously affect the interest of the students. Therefore, the
respondents are directed to fill up the vacancy in question by
redeploying surplus teachers from elsewhere. If within a period of
three months, such redeployment is not possible, then it is open to
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.1631 of 2023
the writ petitioner to appoint an eligible and qualified teacher in
the said vacancy. The impugned order is set aside and the writ
petition is disposed of on these terms. No costs.”
3. The facts in brief are that the respondent is a private aided School and
a vacancy arose in the post of PG Teacher in the year 2021. In compliance of
Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School (Regulations) Rules,
the respondent School sought permission of the appellants to fill up the said
vacancies. By order dated 01.12.2021, the appellants refused permission to fill
up the posts. The reasons mentioned in the said impugned order are that firstly,
the School should attempt to fill up the posts by promotion and if there are no
eligible candidates, then the posts have to be filled up by re-deployment of
surplus teachers found in the District. Aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petitions
were filed.
4. Admittedly, there are no eligible persons to be promoted to the said
post. Therefore, the learned Single Judge concluded that obviously the said
vacancy has to be filled up by direct recruitment. If the surplus teachers are
available, they can be re-deployed by the appellants and if not, the respondent
School must be permitted to fill up the vacancy.
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.1631 of 2023
5. When the appeals came up for hearing, Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would fairly
submit the position that there was no person eligible to be promoted and there
was also no surplus PG teacher available in the District. In view thereof, the
impugned order has rightly been quashed. However, the learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would submit that if the
respondent School makes a fresh application seeking permission to fill up the
post, the same will be granted by the appellants.
6. We are not in agreement of the same. When the respondent School
had duly sought for permission in compliance of Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu
Recognized Private School (Regulations) Rules, the same has wrongly been
rejected without even considering the position that there was neither any person
who is available to be promoted nor there were any surplus teachers. In that
view of the matter, when the said orders have been quashed, Rule 15(4) of the
said Rules is deemed to have been complied with.
7. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to dispose of these Writ
Appeals with the following directions:
(i) the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 18.10.2022 made in
W.P(MD).No.11448 to 11450 of 2022 are upheld inasmuch as it quashes the
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.1631 of 2023
orders of the first appellant dated 01.12.2021;
(ii) The respondent School is deemed to have complied with Rule 15(4)
of the said Rules and will be entitled to fill up the vacancy in the post of PG
Teacher;
(iii)as and when the respondent School duly fills up the vacancy and
sends the same for approval, the appellants shall approve the same in
accordance with law.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.]
27.09.2023
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ssb
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.1631 of 2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
ssb
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD).No.1631 of 2023
27.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
