M.Rettrital vs The Director Of Elementary Education
2025 Latest Caselaw 5603 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5603 Mad
Judgement Date : 2 April, 2025

Madras High Court

M.Rettrital vs The Director Of Elementary Education on 2 April, 2025

Author: Battu Devanand

Bench: Battu Devanand

W.P.(MD)No.3061 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 02.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

W.P.(MD)No.3061 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.2132 of 2025

M.Rettrital ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director of Elementary Education,
Directorate of School Education,
DPI Complex College Road,
Chennai-600 006.

2. The District Educational Officer (Elementary Education),
Dindigul,
Dindigul District.

3. The Block Educational Officer-2,
Nilakottai,
Dindigul District.

4. The Correspondent,
R.C. Middle School,
Ammapatti-624 206,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 04:33:40 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.3061 of 2025

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining
to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.131/Aa3/2022 dated 22.03.2024 on the file
of the Respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct
the respondent No.2 to approve the appointment of the petitioner who has been
working for 12 years from 17.08.2012 as the B.T. Assistant (English) in the
fourth respondent school, with all monetary and service benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Louis

For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan
Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

Heard, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned

Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and carefully

examined materials available on record.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue

involved in this writ petition has already been dealt with by this Court on

several occasions and he placed a copy of the order of this Court dated

10.02.2025 passed in W.P.(MD).No.31324 of 2024.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 04:33:40 pm )

3. Admittedly, in the present case, the second respondent rejected the

proposal sent by the school for approval of the appointment of the petitioner as

BT Assistant (English) in the fourth respondent school from 17.08.2012 with all

monetary and service benefits.

4. In respect of applicability of the cut off date for appointment, it is

relevant to rely on the judgment of this Court held in W.P.(MD)No. 7479 of

2024 dated 17.04.2024, wherein in paragraph Nos.4, 5 & 6 it is held as follows:

"4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner attracted the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).No.2119 of 2021 dated 23.06.2023 in the case of The Commissioner of School Education, Vs Aided Muslim Committee Primary School, Rep. by its Correspondent, S.Sheik Shajakhan Sithik, wherein it is held as under:

“8.Moreover, the said G.O., was issued only on 17.09.2019, whereas the teacher was appointed well before the issuance of the said G.O., ie., 03.07.2018. Therefore, assuming if the said G.O., ultimately would be declared to be valid, that will have a prospective effect. Moreover, as on today, the said G.O., is no more available to the appellant department to say the reason that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.165, the appointment made in respect of the teacher concerned at the 1st respondent school cannot be approved.

9. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly valid and therefore, it is to be sustained. In the result, this Writ Appeal fails, therefore, it is to be dismissed, accordingly, it is dismissed. As a sequel, there shall be a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 04:33:40 pm )

direction to the appellant Department to approve the appointment of the teacher concerned in the 1st respondent School and extend all service benefits from the date of such appointment to the teacher concerned within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the

Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.09.2019 has been kept

inoperative in W.A.(MD).No.76 of 2019 batch dated 31.03.2021 in the case of

The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu School

Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9 vs Iruthaya Amali and

the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:

“95. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are inclined to pass the following orders in this batch of cases : .... (o) In view of the aforesaid, the G.O.Ms.No. 165, School Education [Tho.Ka.2(1)] Department, dated 17.09.2019 is hereby declared to be inoperative.”

6. The petitioner's appointment has been made prior to the order dated 31.03.2021 passed in W.A.(MD).No.76 of 2019 batch. Hence, the petitioner School can get the advantage of getting approval of the appointment of Sunitha as B.T.Assistant Tamil. Therefore, the respondents cannot decline the approval of the appointment due to the reasons of TET eligibility or the deployment of the alleged surplus."

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 04:33:40 pm )

6. Since the above analogy is applicable to the situation that has arisen in

this case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the petitioner School is

also entitled for the same relief.

7. In view of the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the

impugned order is set aside. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to pass orders

to grant approval of appointment of the petitioner as BT Assistant (English) in

the petitioner School with effect from 17.08.2012 with all service and monetary

benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

There shall be no order as to Costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed