Madras High Court
I.Kalaiselvi vs The Director Of School on 23 October, 2024
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
WP.No.12474 of 2024
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 23.10.2024
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition No.12474 of 2024
& WMP.No.13631 of 2024
I.Kalaiselvi ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director of School
Education, DPI Campus,
College Road, Chennai-6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam
District.
3.The District Educational
Officer, Nagapattinam,
Nagapattinam District.
4.The Block Development Officer,
Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam
District.
5.The Correspondent, TELC
Bishop Johnson Higher
Secondary School, Tranquebar,
Nagapattinam District-609313. ...Respondents
PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in O.Mu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
WP.No.12474 of 2024
No.1695/A2/20219 dated 20.2.2019, quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to approve the appointment of
the petitioner in the post of B.T. Assistant (Maths) in the 5th
respondent school from the date of appointment on 10.9.2018 with
payment of salary and other service benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan for
Mr.T.Elumalai
For R1 to R4 : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru, SGP
For R5 : No appearance
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of
the second respondent dated 20.2.2019 and for a direction to the
respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post
of B.T. Assistant (Maths) in the fifth respondent school from the date
of appointment i.e. on 10.9.2018 and to extend all the attendant
benefits.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
respondents 1 to 4. Though the fifth respondent is served and his
name printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of
him either in person or through counsel.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The case of the petitioner is as follows :
(i) The fifth respondent is a religious minority school. The
petitioner was appointed as a B.T. Assistant (Maths) in the fifth
respondent school in a vacancy that arose due to the retirement of an
incumbent. The petitioner joined the post on 10.9.2018.
(ii) The fifth respondent school submitted the proposal to the
second respondent through the third respondent. However, the second
respondent rejected the proposal through the impugned proceedings
dated 20.2.2019 on the ground that it was a surplus post and that
therefore, the approval could not be granted. Aggrieved by that, the
above writ petition has been filed.
4. The second respondent filed a counter, in which, he has taken
a stand that there was no vacancy since one post of Secondary Grade
Teacher was already found surplus and it was surrendered to the
common pool maintained by the first respondent and that no approval
can be granted to the appointment. Accordingly, the second
respondent sought for dismissal of this writ petition.
5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on
record and more particularly the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The case in hand is squarely covered by the common
judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary
to Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9 Vs. Iruthaya Amali [W.A.(MD) No.76
of 2019 etc. cases dated 31.3.2021], in which, the Division Bench
issued series of directions and it was categorically held that G.O.Ms.
No.165 dated 17.9.2019 cannot be given a retrospective effect so as
to take away the sanctioned posts, which have already been granted
to the institution. The said common judgment was followed
subsequently in various cases where the approval was rejected by
citing the same reason.
7. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned
proceedings of the second respondent dated 20.2.2019 is hereby
quashed. There shall be a direction to the fifth respondent school to
resubmit the proposal to the second respondent through the third
respondent. The second respondent shall deal with the proposal to be
resubmitted and grant approval for the appointment subject to the
petitioner fulfilling all the other requirements. It is made clear that the
fifth respondent school is a minority school and that therefore, the
second respondent cannot insist for the TET qualification. The entire
process shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that once the
approval is granted, the petitioner will be entitled to all the service and
monetary benefits.
8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the above
directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed.
23.10.2024
To
1.The Director of School
Education, DPI Campus,
College Road, Chennai-6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam
District.
3.The District Educational
Officer, Nagapattinam,
Nagapattinam District.
4.The Block Development Officer,
Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam
District.
RS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS
WP.No.12474 of 2024&
23.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
