Madras High Court

The Correspondent vs The Sate Of Tamil Nadu on 24 April, 2025

Author: Battu Devanand

Bench: Battu Devanand

                                                                                     W.P.(MD)No.6893 of 2025

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED : 24.04.2025

                                                       CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

                                        W.P.(MD)No.6893 of 2025
                                                  and
                                    W.M.P(MD)Nos.5173 and 5175 of 2025

                The Correspondent,
                St.Joseph's College Higher Secondary School,
                Near Chatram Bus Stand,
                Trichy District – 620 002.                                                 ... Petitioner

                                                            Vs.

                1.The Sate of Tamil Nadu,
                  Rep. by its Secretary,
                  Department of School Education,
                  Fort St.George,
                  Chennai – 600 009.

                2.The Director of School Education,
                  College Road,
                  Chennai – 600 006.

                3.The Chief Educational Officer,
                  Trichy,
                  Trichy District.

                4.The District Educational Officer,
                  Trichy,
                  Trichy District.                                                         ... Respondents




                1/9




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis            ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 10:49:55 am )
                                                                                        W.P.(MD)No.6893 of 2025

                PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
                issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
                the impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent Chief Educational
                Officer in Oo.Mu.No.1090/A4/2023, dated 31.05.2023 and the consequential
                proceedings of the fourth respondent DEO in Oo.Mu.Mo.1397/Aa3/2023, dated
                07.06.2023, quash the same and further direct the respondents 3 and 4 to
                approve forthwith the appointment of Palayakumaresan as BT Assistant
                (History) in the petitioner school w.e.f.14.06.2021 and disburse the grant-in-aid
                towards his salary, allowances with all attendant benefits.


                                      For Petitioner           : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar
                                                                 For M/s.Issac Chambers

                                      For Respondents          : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
                                                                 Government Advocate

                                                     ORDER

Heard Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, Mr.T.Amjad Khan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the

respondents and carefully perused the materials available on records.

2. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus

to quash the impugned proceedings passed by the third respondent / Chief

Educational Officer dated 31.05.2023 in Oo.Mu.No.1090/A4/2023 and the

consequential proceedings of the fourth respondent / District Educational

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 10:49:55 am )

Officer dated 07.06.2023 in Oo.Mu.Mo.1397/Aa3/2023 and further direct the

respondents 3 and 4 to approve the appointment of Palayakumaresan as BT

Assistant (History) in the petitioner school w.e.f. 14.06.2021 and disburse the

grant-in-aid towards his salary, allowances with all attendant benefits.

3. The petitioner School has appointed one Palayakumaresan as BT

Assistant (History) on 14.06.2021 due to the death of the then incumbent

H.Armstrong on 30.04.2021. The School submitted the proposal for approval of

appointment of the said Palayakumaresan to the third respondent on 05.12.2022.

However, there was no response. In such circumstances, the petitioner School

filed writ petition in W.P(MD)No.2030 of 2023 before this Court. This Court

vide order dated 01.02.2023 directed the fourth respondent therein to consider

the petitioner's proposal, dated 05.12.2022 and pass appropriate orders within a

period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The

petitioner school communicated the same to the fourth respondent on

05.05.2023 and again requested to approve the appointment. The fourth

respondent has already forwarded the proposal to the third respondent vide

proceedings, dated 07.03.2023. The third respondent vide impugned

proceedings, dated 31.05.2023 refused to approve the appointment of

Palayakumaresan as B.T.Assistant (History) stating that in the academic years

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 10:49:55 am )

2019-2020 and 2022-2023, 26 and 18 B.T.Assistant (History) Posts

respectively were declared as surplus in Trichy District and further stated that as

per the proceedings of the Commissioner of School Education, the post will be

filled by way of deployment. Thereafter, the fourth respondent communicated

the same to the petitioner school vide proceedings, dated 07.06.2023.

4. The petitioner school submitted a representation to the fourth

respondent, wherein, the petitioner school had appraised the fourth respondent

as per paragraph 95 (v) of the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 31.03.2021 in

W.A.(MD).No.76 of 2019, etc., batch the petitioner school being a minority

aided school, surplus teachers in other schools cannot be deployed to the

petitioner school and further appraised the eligibility of the school and

requested the third respondent to approve the appointment of Palayakumaresan

as B.T.Assistant (History) in the petitioner school with effect from 14.06.2021.

However, there was no response. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file

the present writ petition.

5. The other reason for rejecting the approval is concerned, it is about the

availability of surplus teachers working in the other schools under the same

management. The petitioner has appointed the said Palayakumaresan as BT

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 10:49:55 am )

Assistant (History) with effect from 14.06.2021. According to the petitioner, the

surplus teachers working in the other schools coming under the same

management will no way impediment in approving the appointment made

against the sanctioned posts. Hence, the petitioner appointed the said

Palayakumaresan as BT Assistant (History) on which date the BT Assistant

(History) post was very much a sanctioned vacancy. Hence, the reason for

rejection of the approval of appointment made by the petitioner School on the

ground that the school ought to have filled the sanctioned post with the surplus

teachers is also not valid.

6. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 10:49:55 am )

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 10:49:55 am )

appointment due to the reasons of TET eligibility or the deployment of the alleged surplus."

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

this case, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the petitioner

School is also entitled for the same relief.

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

impugned orders are set aside. The respondents 3 and 4 are directed to pass

orders to grant approval of appointment of Palayakumaresan as BT Assistant

(History) in the petitioner School with effect from 14.06.2021 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.