Madras High Court
G.Nithyadevi … vs The Director Of School Education on 4 April, 2025
W.P. No. 17892 and 17901 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P. No. 17892 and 17901 of 2019
and
W.M.P. Nos. 17300 and 17307 of 2019
G.Nithyadevi … Petitioner in W.P. No.17892 of 2019
T.Muthu Irulandi … Petitioner in W.P. No.17901 of 2019
-vs-
1. The Director of School Education
College Road, Chennai-600006.
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Chennai Chief Educational Office
Chennai District-600008.
3. The District Educational Officer
West Chennai, Chennai District-602006.
4. The Correspondent
W.P.A.Sundarapandian Higher Secondary School
Ayanavaram-600023
Chennai District. ... Respondents in WPs
Common Prayer:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, 1950, praying to issue Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
entire records connected with the impugned orders of the second respondent
passed in Oo.Mu.No.9454/E4/2018 and Oo.Mu.No.9455/E4/2018 dated
27.05.2019 and quash the same and directing the second respondent to approve
the appointment of the petitioners as Vocational Teacher (Computer) in the
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:12:40 pm )
W.P. No. 17892 and 17901 of 2019
petitioners School w.e.f. 02.07.2018 with all consequential benefits, based on
the proposal by the fourth respondent dated 10.07.2018.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Ganesan (both Wps)
For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari, GA (both Wps)
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed to call for the entire records
connected with the impugned orders of the second respondent passed in
Oo.Mu.No.9454/E4/2018 and Oo.Mu.No.9455/E4/2018 dated 27.05.2019 and
quash the same and directing the second respondent to approve the appointment
of the petitioners as Vocational Teacher (Computer) in the petitioners School
w.e.f. 02.07.2018 with all consequential benefits, based on the proposal by the
fourth respondent dated 10.07.2018.
2. The petitioners are working as Computer Instructors in the fourth
respondent School. They are also qualified to act as Computer Teachers to
every vacancy arises in the permanent post of Computer Teachers and the
petitioners have been appointed and the proposals have been sent to the second
respondent for approval. The approval was rejected for the reasons that the
Government has issued an order stating that the incumbents who have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:12:40 pm )
W.P. No. 17892 and 17901 of 2019
working in the sanctioned post once retired or promoted under fresh
appointments can be made.
3. The Government orders issued in G.O. Ms. No.967, Education (HS.3)
Department, dated 16.10.1992 reads as under:-
“4. Government examined the matter carefully based on the
recommendations of the Director of School Education and they
have decided:-
(a) to ordering 587 fully qualified double part time
teachers into regular scale of pay.
(b) unqualified 450 double part time teachers may be
trained and absorbed in the regular scales of pay.
(c) to bring all qualified single part time teachers
into existing /sanctioned secondary grade posts and
(d) other unqualified single part time Teachers may
be given training and absorbed as secondary grade
teachers in future.
5. I. Sanction is accordingly accorded to the creation of 587
(Five Hundred and Eighty Seven Only) posts of vocational
instructors in the scale of pay of Rs.1400-40-1600-50-2300-60-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:12:40 pm )
W.P. No. 17892 and 17901 of 2019
2600 to teach vocational education in various subjects so as to
absorb the fully qualified double part time vocational
instructors on regular basis with effect from the date of this
order. These posts will be adjusted in the posts meant for
vocational education as per government of India guidelines.
Government also order to abolish 587 double part time teachers
posts.
II. The incumbents of the posts will be eligible for D.A. And
other allowances as admissible from time to time in addition to
their pay.
III. The posts sanctioned in para 5 (i). above, either in
Government or non-Government Higher Secondary Schools will
be for a period of 3 years from the initial sanction.
6. The Director of School Education is requested to take
immediate action to fill up the posts of the vocational instructors
sanctioned in para 5(i). above and to abolish the double part
time vocational teachers posts.
7. As regards the items in (b) and (d) in para 4 above, the
Director of School Education is requested to formulate suitable
training programme for the unqualified double part time and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:12:40 pm )
W.P. No. 17892 and 17901 of 2019
single part time vocational instructors and as regards item 3 ©
the Director of School Education is requested to send proposals
with full details for appointing the qualified single part time
vocational instructors as secondary grade teachers for approval
immediately. ”
The above Government Order has stated that the posts sanctioned as per this
Government Order would be for a period of 3 years from the initial sanction.
However, a clarification has been issued in the subsequent Government Order
in G.O. Ms. No. 1177, Education (HS3) Department, dated 01.12.1992 and the
relevant paragraph of the above order is extracted as below:-
“3. Government after careful consideration accept the proposal
of the Director of School Education. Accordingly the ban effected
in the Government letter first read above be lifted with effect from
the date of issue of this order. The Government also direct the
Chief Educational Officer to permitted to fill up all the
sanctioned vacant of part-time vocational instructions in the
Higher Secondary Schools subject to the following conditions:
i. There should not be any extra financial commitment to
Government in this regard. ii. The total number of sanctioned
posts of part-time vocational instructors should not be exceeded.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:12:40 pm )
W.P. No. 17892 and 17901 of 2019
iii. The permission now granted does not cover conversion of
single part time instructors, after 23.10.89 the date on which the
ban was imposed.”
In pursuant to that, a similarly placed person has filed the writ petitions in W.P.
Nos.18516 & 18517 of 2010 for claiming the approval of his vocational
Teacher (Accountancy). This Court passes an order in the said writ petition on
24.10.2017 by following the earlier Division Bench judgment held in State of
Tamil Nadu & Others -vs- The Correspondent, St.Joseph Malankara Shyrian
Catholic Higher Secondary School [Order dated 31.07.2013 made in W.A.
(MD) No. 652 of 2013]. The relevant paragraphs of the above judgment are
extracted below:-
“12. A perusal of the documents shows that by G.O.Ms.No.991,
Education Department, dated 16.07.1990, all the Chief
Educational Officers were directed not to make any fresh
appointment of part-time teachers (Vocational), without
obtaining the prior permission of the Director of School
Education. However, by G.O.Ms.No.1177, Education (HS3)
Department, dated 01.12.1992, the Government lifted the ban on
filling up of vacant posts of Part-time Vocational Instructors on
conditions that there is no extra financial commitment to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:12:40 pm )
W.P. No. 17892 and 17901 of 2019
Government and that the total number of sanctioned posts of
part-time Vocational Instructors should not be exceeded.
13. In the case on hand, a bare perusal of the appointment
orders of the writ petitioners dated 11.08.2004 and 02.06.2003
shows that they were appointed in retirement vacancies in
sanctioned posts and the same was made obviously after passing
of G.O.Ms.No.1177, Education (HS3) Department, dated
01.12.1992, lifting the ban on appointments, subject to certain
conditions. That apart, it is not the plea of the respondent
authorities that there is extra financial commitment to
Government by virtue of the appointment of the writ petitioners
and that the total number of sanctioned posts of part-time
Vocational Instructors had exceeded. Admittedly, the petitioners
have been appointed in retirement vacancies and, therefore, no
extra financial commitment or increase in the sanctioned posts
is made. The averment in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition that the staff fixation order shows the said sanctioned
posts is also not disputed by the respondent authorities in their
counter affidavit or across the bar. Therefore, this plea of the
learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:12:40 pm )
W.P. No. 17892 and 17901 of 2019
respondent authorities cannot be countenanced.
14. The next contention of the learned Special Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities that
the posts are sanctioned only to the teachers and not to the fifth
respondent/school and, therefore, once the teachers resign or
retire or die or leave the school, the said post will be resumed to
the respondent/department, also does not hold water in view of
the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in The State of
Tamil Nadu and others v. The Correspondent, St.Joseph’s
Malankara Shyrian Catholic Higher Secondary School,
[Judgment dated 31.7.2013 made in W.A.(MD) No.652 of 2013],
wherein it was held as under:
“4. The issue as to whether a person appointed in a
sanctioned post by a minority school can be denied
approval of appointment was considered by a
Division Bench of this Court in W.A (MD) No.16 of
2011, dated 25.1.2011, wherein in paragraph Nos.(3)
to (5), it is held thus:
‘(3) Learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent submits that one of the special
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:12:40 pm )
W.P. No. 17892 and 17901 of 2019
teacher post (Sewing) became vacant and in the
said vacancy, the first respondent was
appointed from 15.7.2004 and she is serving in
the second respondent school all these years.
Learned counsel for the first respondent also
submitted that the said sanctioned post is in
existence and the appellants neither declared
the said post as surplus nor resumed the post
till date from the second respondent school. To
prove the availability of the post, the staff
fixation orders of the school is filed. The reason
stated by the District Elementary Educational
Officer for rejecting the request for approval
was that there is reduction of student strength.
The very same issue was considered by the
Division Bench in W.A.No.1263 of 2001, by
order dated 22.1.2004, wherein this Court has
held that if a person is appointed in a
sanctioned post, the approval cannot be
rejected and if there is a fall in strength and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:12:40 pm )
W.P. No. 17892 and 17901 of 2019
post become surplus after granting approval to
the post, the said teacher along with the post
could be transferred/deployed to a needy
school. The same is the view taken by the
learned Single Judge in this case by relying
upon the various other judgments. (4) The
learned counsel for the first respondent also
submitted that an identical case was allowed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7218 of
2008 by order dated 4.8.2009 and without filing
an appeal against the said order, the said order
was implemented by the very same second
appellant in this appeal by order dated
18.9.2009. (5) The said fact is also not disputed
by the learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the appellants.
5. Applying the said judgment to the facts of the
present case, there is no error in the order passed by
the learned Single Judge….”
15.In the case on hand, nowhere it has been stated by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:12:40 pm )
W.P. No. 17892 and 17901 of 2019
respondent authorities that the sanctioned posts have been
declared surplus or that the same have been resumed.
Therefore, the law enunciated in the decision cited supra
squarely applies to the case on hand.
16.In the result:
(a) both the writ petitions are allowed and the
impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in
Na.Ka.106533/V1/E3/2009, dated 22.12.2009, are set
aside;
(b) a direction is issued to the respondents authorities
to approve the appointment of the writ petitioners in
the 5th respondent school from 11.08.2004 and
02.06.2003 respectively and to pay them salary and
other benefits forthwith;
(c) such exercise shall be carried out by the
respondents authorities within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:12:40 pm )
W.P. No. 17892 and 17901 of 2019
4. Even in the instant case, the respondents at no point of time had rendered
the post already sanctioned for the fourth respondent School. Similarly placed
persons who have been frequently filing writ petitions and got the benefits
under the same footing in the subsequent proceedings also. In such case,
different yardstick cannot be adopted to the petitioner as in this case. The
appointments of the petitioners should also be approved as how the benefit has
been extended to the other petitioners. It is once again clarified that the ban
imposed in the earlier Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.967, Education (HS.3)
Department, dated 16.10.1992 has been lifted by issuance of the subsequent
Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 1177, Education (HS3) Department, dated
01.12.1992 . Hence, there is no hurdle for approving the appointment of the
petitioners as requested by the fourth respondent School Management. Hence,
I feel that a suitable direction should be given.
5. In view of the same, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned
orders are liable to be set aside. The second respondent is directed to reconsider
the proposal sent by the fourth respondent School in this regard in the light of
the above observations and the judicial pronouncement and pass orders
granting approval within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:12:40 pm )
W.P. No. 17892 and 17901 of 2019
copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed. No costs.
04.04.2025
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking /Non-speaking order
Maya
To
1. The Director of School Education
College Road, Chennai-600006.
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Chennai Chief Educational Office
Chennai District-600008.
3. The District Educational Officer
West Chennai, Chennai District-602006.
4. The Correspondent
W.P.A.Sundarapandian Higher Secondary School
Ayanavaram-600023
Chennai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:12:40 pm )
W.P. No. 17892 and 17901 of 2019
R.N.MANJULA, J.
Maya
W.P. Nos. 17892 and 17901 of 2019
Dated : 04.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:12:40 pm )
