Madras High Court
The Correspondent vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 April, 2025
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
W.P(MD)No.10218 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 09.04.2025
Pronounced on : 28.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
W.P.(MD)No.10218 of 2025
and
WMP. (MD) Nos.7617 & 7619 of 2025
The Correspondent,
St.Joesph's Concent
Higher Secondary School. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State 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,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:35:28 pm )
W.P(MD)No.10218 of 2025
4. The District Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ....Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, in the nature of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the
3rd respondent Chief Educational Officer in Na.Ka.No.
7330/A4/2024 dated 03.09.2024 and the consequential proceedings
of the 4th respondent DEO in Moo.Mu.No. 758/Aa5/2018 dated
14.09.2024 quash the same and further direct the 3rd respondent
DEO to approve forthwith the appointment of Sr.X.Maria Silvia
Rose as BT Assistant (Social Science) in the petitioner school w.e.f
08.06.2017 with salary, allowances and all attendant benefit
including arrears of salary, and pass such further or other orders as
this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddarthan
Additional Government Advocate
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:35:28 pm )
W.P(MD)No.10218 of 2025
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned proceedings
of the third respondent dated 03.09.2024 and the fourth respondent
dated 14.09.2024 and for consequential direction to the third respondent
to approve the appointment of Sr.X.Maria Silvia Rose as B.T.
Assistant (Social Science) in the petitioner school with effect from
08.06.2017 with salary, allowances and all attendant benefit including
arrears of salary.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.Siddharthan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents and carefully perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner school is a recognized aided minority
educational institution. Admittedly, the school forms part of the
corporate management. The school appointed one Sr.X.Maria Silvia
Rose as B.T.Assistant (Social Science) in the petitioner school on
08.06.2017. She joined duty on the same day and is continuously
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:35:28 pm )
serving in the said post. Seeking approval of the said appointment, the
school submitted a proposal to the fourth respondent and to disburse the
grant-in-aid towards her salary. The said proposal was rejected. The
school again re-submitted the said proposal. After prolonged
correspondence and legal proceedings, the proposal sent by the school
has been rejected by the impugned order stating that there were surplus
teachers in the other schools under the very same management and the
school ought to have filled the posts of the surplus teachers. Therefore,
the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition.
4. The only reason assigned in the rejection order is that since
there were surplus teachers in the corporate management, the approval
was rejected. The issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court
in Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education
Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 vs. Iruthaya Amali and
subsequent judgment in the Commissioner of School Education vs.
Aided Muslim Committee Primary School, Rep. by its
Correspondent, S.Sheik Shajakhan Sithik. It is also worthwhile
to point out that the G.O. 165 which prohibited the approval
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:35:28 pm )
of appointments where there is a surplus was held inoperative by this
Court. However, in Iruthayamali's case, the Division Bench held that
approval of appointment need not be granted when there is surplus
teachers in the corporate management or in the school, if it is a stand
alone institution only on and from 31.03.2021, that is, the date of the
judgment in the said case.
5. Following the above preposition of law, a Division Bench of
this Court by its judgment dated 29.10.2024 in WA(MD)No.2134 of
2024 held that all appointments made prior to that date i.e 31.03.2021 to
a sanctioned post have to be approved.
6. A co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in its judgment
dated 04.11.2024 in WA(MD)No.2208 of 2024, while dealing with the
similar issue, held as extracted herein under:
“4. The issue as to whether the educational
authorities are empowered to reject the approval of
appointment of a teacher in a minority school on the ground
that there are surplus teachers in the other schools in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:35:28 pm )
corporate management, has already been dealt with by this
Court in several decisions including the decision in Iruthaya
Amali's case. One such decision was by a co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of the Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli District and another Vs. A.X.Mino and another
passed in W.A.(MD).No.1855 of 2024 dated 16.10.2024. By
placing reliance upon the decision in Iruthaya Amali's case,
the learned Single Judge had held that the educational
authorities cannot reject the application seeking for approval
of appointments on this ground. In this background, we do
not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned
Single Judge and the same stands confirmed''.
7. By order dated 10.02.2025 in WP(MD)No.31324 of 2024,
while allowing the said writ petition, this Court held that the reason for
rejection of the approval of the appointment made by the petitioner
school on the ground that the school ought to have filled the sanctioned
post with the surplus teachers is not valid. The relevant portion of the
said order is extracted herein under:
''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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:35:28 pm )
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 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''.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also
submitted that the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.165 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:35:28 pm )
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."
8. 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. ''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:35:28 pm )
8. By following the settled proposition of law as stated supra,
this writ petition is allowed with the following directions:
i) The impugned proceedings issued by the third
respondent in Na.Ka.No. 7330/A4/2024 dated 03.09.2024
and the consequential proceedings of the fourth respondent in
Moo.Mu.No. 758/Aa5/2018 dated 14.09.2024 are set aside.
ii) The respondents 3 and 4 are directed to pass orders
granting approval of appointment of Sr.X.Maria Silvia Rose
as BT Assistant (Social Science) in the petitioner school
with effect from 08.06.2017 with salary, allowances and all
attendant benefit including arrears of salary;
iii) The said exercise shall be completed within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently,connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
CM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:35:28 pm )
To,
1. The State 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,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
4. The District Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:35:28 pm )
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
CM
and
WMP. (MD) Nos.7617 & 7619 of 2025
28.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:35:28 pm )
