Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs The Correspondent on 29 August, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
2025:MHC:2114
W.A.(MD).No.935 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 18.08.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.(MD).No.935 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.5151 of 2020
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
St.George Fort, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3.The Joint Director (Vocational),
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Trichy, Trichy District.
5.The District Educational Officer,
Trichy, Trichy District. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
1.The Correspondent,
St.Anne's Girls Higher Secondary School,
Melapudur-620 001,
Trichy District. ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
Page 1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
W.A.(MD).No.935 of 2020
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the
order dated 23.04.2019 in W.P.(MD).No.7658 of 2017 and allow the Writ
Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.Issac Mohanlal
Senior Advocate
for M/s.Issac Chambers
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by K.RAJASEKAR, J.)
This intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
23.04.2019 passed in W.P.(MD).No.7658 of 2017.
2. The respondent School filed a Writ Petition for quashing the order
dated 30.12.2015, whereby, the District Educational Officer refused to approve
the appointment of Tmt.A.Celin Mary as Vocational Instructor.
3. According to the respondent School, it is a recognized, aided minority
educational institution owned and administered by the Congregation of Sisters
of St.Anne, Tiruchirappalli. It has nearly 2500 students and getting aid for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
majority of its courses. As per G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1)
Department, dated 29.12.1997, the teacher-pupil ratio was fixed as 1:40. The
respondent School is offering two vocational groups in the higher secondary
sections. The School was sanctioned with four full time Vocational Instructors.
One post of Vocational Instructor in Accountancy and Auditing fell vacant on
30.06.2015 due to the voluntary retirement of then incumbent, Tmt.R.Sheela on
30.06.2015. Subsequently, on 01.12.2015, one A.Celin Mary was appointed in
that post and a proposal seeking approval was also forwarded to the authorities.
However, approval was refused on the ground that there was no permission
obtained from the Director of School Education. Prior permission from the
higher authorities is not necessary, since the School is a minority educational
institution. There is no ban on filling up of vacant sanctioned Vocational
Instructor post. Hence, the order of refusal is liable to be set aside and the
appointment of A.Celin Mary as Vocational Instructor is to be approved.
4. After hearing the parties, the Writ Court disposed of the Writ Petition
in favour of the School. Aggrieved over the same, this Writ Appeal has been
filed by the official respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants
submitted that the Government has taken a policy decision to grant benefits
providing time scale of pay to the incumbents working in part time post of
Vocational Instructors with effect from 01.04.1990. By issuing G.O.Ms.No.991,
Education Department, dated 16.07.1990, it was specifically instructed not to
make any fresh appointments of part time teachers (vocational) and also not to
not to convert any single part-time teacher into double part-time teacher or
vice-versa without obtaining specific orders of the Director. It is stated by the
Department that the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.712, Education (HS)
Department, dated 28.05.1990 for creation of 800 posts of Vocational
Instructors with effect from 01.04.1990 so as to absorb the fully qualified
double part time Vocational Instructors on regular basis. Subsequently,
G.O.Ms.No.128, School Education Department, dated 12.06.2007 was issued
constituting a High Level Committee on Vocational Education to review the
present status of the Vocational Education Courses offered in Higher Secondary
Schools in the State and to revamp the Vocational Education in accordance with
present day requirements. It was also decided not to appoint any teacher at that
stage till the revised system of Vocational Education was fully finalized.
Thereafter, the Government has issued G.O.(Ms).No.9, School Education (VE)
Department, dated 06.01.2009, which is made applicable to the existing post
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
also, which permits the existing post to be lapsed on retirement, death and
resignation. Further, if any post is required, then, permission from the
Department has to be obtained. The post of Vocational Instructors were
sanctioned to the Schools only to absorb the existing incumbents, who were
initially appointed as part/double part time Vocational Instructors on
consolidated pay. These posts are person oriented and do not belong to the
School. Hence, as per G.O.(Ms).No.9 dated 06.01.2009, no vocational courses
could be started from the academic year 2007-2008 and no new Vocational
Instructor should be appointed either by the School Management or PTA.
Hence, new vocational courses could be started only with the permission of the
Government. Thereby, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been
assailed for the reasons stated above.
6. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the School Management has
submitted that the vocational teachers in the Higher Secondary School play a
vital role in imparting education in higher secondary level. He further
submitted that the Government itself expressed its intention to change the
existing vocational courses into unifocal courses (more emphasis on Vocational
Education). That being so, providing vocational subjects is very much
necessary and more practical courses have to be offered to the students so as to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
improve the education system. He also relied on the National Education Policy,
2020 to buttress his argument.
7. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused
the materials available on record.
8. The Government has taken a stand that the issue relating to
appointments of Vocational Teachers have reached its finality by issuance of
G.O.(Ms).No.9 dated 06.01.2009, wherein, there are specific instructions issued
by the Government that no new vocational courses shall be started from the
academic year 2007-2008. Further, no new Vocational Instructors shall be
appointed either by the School Management or PTA. The new vocational
courses shall be opened only with the permission of the Government. Apart
from this, there are series of directions issued in G.O.(Ms).No.9. This
Government Order was held valid and recently, the Division Bench of this
Court, in a batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD).Nos.532 of 2019 etc., dated
09.06.2025, The Secretary to Government, Department of School Education,
Chennai and others Vs. Lovisal Roselin and another reported in 2025:MHC:
1360, accepted the contentions raised by the Government in the appeals and no
appointment of Vocational Instructors were permitted without the prior
permission of the Government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
9. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment cited supra, has
elaborately considered the scope for granting approval for the new appointment
of the Vocational Instructors in Government Aided Schools.
10. To understand the history of issuance of G.O.(Ms).No.9, School
Education (VE) Department, dated 06.01.2009, it is necessary to refer to some
relevant previous Government Orders, concerning the Vocational Instructors
and Vocational Courses.
10.1. G.O.Ms.No.712, Education (HS) Department, dated 28.05.1990
reveals that the Government had decided as early as in the year 1978 to run the
vocational courses in the Higher Secondary Schools. Accordingly, sanction was
accorded for creation of posts of part time Vocational Instructors, at the rate of
2 for each vocational course. Subsequently, these part time Vocational
Instructors prayed for regularization of their services and to fix reasonable time
scale for them. It further reveals that there were 1837 double part time
Vocational Instructors engaged in the Higher Secondary Schools. Thereby, for
the purpose of providing better service benefits to them, 800 posts of
Vocational Instructors were created with effect from 01.04.1990. Further, to
streamline the appointment of part time Vocational Instructors, a Committee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
was also constituted to review the entire concept of Vocationalisation in Higher
Secondary Schools.
10.2. Pending final recommendations of the Committee constituted, the
Committee had recommended creation of 1037 posts of Vocational Instructors.
Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.967, Education (HS.3) Department, dated 16.10.1992
was issued and a policy decision was taken to absorb the double part time
teachers in regular time scale of pay with certain conditions. The relevant
portion of the Government Order reads as follows:
4. Government examined the matter carefully based on the
recommendations of the Director of School Education 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: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
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.”
10.3. In G.O.Ms.No.834, Education, Science and Technology (HS.II)
Department, dated 23.09.1994, the Government has once again re-visited the
issues on Vocational Instructors as well as their qualification and issued the
following directions:
“(VI) The 1059 unqualified single and double part time
vocational instructors shall be given appropriate training by the
district institutions of education and training and on completion
of training appointed in secondary grade posts in the secondary
grade scale of pay. The Director of School Education shall evolve
a suitable training programme in consultation with the Director
of Teacher education, research and training. Till such time, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
unqualified double/single part time vocational instructors shall
be paid a consolidated pay at an enhanced rate of Rs.1000/-,
Rs.500/- P.M. respectively. During that period of training these
instructor will continue to draw the above remuneration;”
10.4. In G.O.(Ms).No.8, School Education (VE) Department, dated
06.01.2009, the Government has accepted the report of the High Level
Committee on Vocational Education and in G.O.(Ms).No.9, School Education
(VE) Department, dated 06.01.2009, instructions were issued after accepting
the Committee's recommendations. G.O.(Ms).No.8 dated 06.01.2009 contains
various list of recommendations for the purpose of revamping Vocational
Education in Higher Secondary Schools in Tamil Nadu. This shows that based
on the Committee's recommendations, the Government has issued orders
accepting the recommendations.
11. It is contended by the respondent School that, G.O.(Ms).No.9 dated
06.01.2009 prohibits starting of new vocational courses from the academic year
2007-2008 and appointment of new Vocational Instructor, whereas, it has not
dealt with the Vocational Instructor posts already sanctioned by the
Government. The respondent School is having a sanctioned post of Vocational
Instructor and students are continuously studying and it has sufficient students
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
strength to continue the Vocational Instructors. Hence, this Government Order
shall not be made applicable to the facts of this case.
12. However, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.532 of
2019 etc., batch dated 09.06.2025, referred supra, has considered this point. On
going through the judgment of the Division Bench, it shows that what was
impugned therein is also the appointments to sanctioned posts, which are
sought to be approved by the competent authorities and it is observed in
paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows:
“5.The Division Bench of this Court considered the case of
Vocational Instructors in W.A(MD)No.1494 of 2017 [The
Secretary, the State of Tamil Nadu, Department of School
Education and others Vs. The Secretary/Correspondent, Setupatti
Higher Secondary School] and a direction was issued to approve
the appointment of these Vocational Instructors vide Judgment
dated 01.03.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the State preferred
a Special Leave Petition and leave was granted. The Apex Court
passed final orders in Civil Appeal No.12310 of 2024, dated 12th
November, 2024. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order read as under:
“4.We are of the view that the judgment cannot be
sustained in the eye of law, as admittedly, the institutions are
receiving aid. Thus, they are bound by the Government orders
which require prior approval. The permission for the earlier
incumbent vocational instructor was granted as a one off case by
taking a sympathetic view so as to facilitate the earlier
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
incumbents to complete their tenure, notwithstanding, the fact
that the said posts have not been sanctioned. Unfortunately, the
present incumbents also have been appointed by a backdoor entry
and they are at the verge of completion of tenure. Thus,
considering the factual scenario, though we are inclined to set
aside the impugned judgment, on the principle of law, we are not
inclined to disturb the appointments made.
5. Accordingly, as a principle of law, the judgment rendered
by the High Court cannot be relied upon in future as a precedent.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appointments
made in favour of the private respondent shall continue and,
therefore, they are entitled to continue with aid. It is made clear
that the arrears will have to be paid within a period of twelve
weeks from today. We further make it clear that if the same orders
are continued by all the institutions, then the Court shall take into
consideration the consequence to be met by those institutions as
against making the government to pay, as it is at their instance,
the entire scenario has emerged.”
6.Relying on the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that
hereinafter no relief needs to be granted in respect of Vocational
Instructors by the High Court. Therefore, all these Writ Appeals
are to be allowed. ''
13. Paragraph 7 of the judgment specifically recorded the points raised
therein, which is, very same point raised herein for consideration and it reads as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
''7.Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of some of the School/Vocational Instructors would
oppose by stating that there is no complete prohibition for
appointment of Vocational Instructors. Even in G.O.Ms.No.9,
School Education (VE) Department, dated 06.01.2009 clause (v)
indicates that “the existing Vocational courses should change into
unilocal courses over a period of five years giving more time to
vocational subjects and for practicals. Practicals should be
conducted either in the industries or in the ITIs or in the approved
community Colleges Language syllabus should be reduced and
converted into a soft skills curriculum”.''
14. Rejecting the above contention, the Division Bench has answered as
follows:
“15.This Court is of the considered view that any change in
the policy decision by the Government regarding Vocational
courses should not affect the service conditions of the existing
Vocational Teachers, who were appointed prior to the issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE) Department, dated
06.01.2009. Service conditions cannot be altered to the
disadvantage of employees who are all already in service. This
being the basic principles of service jurisprudence, the
Government policy in G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE)
Department, dated 06.01.2009 will have a prospective effect and
cannot be implemented retrospectively so as to affect the services
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
of existing Vocational Instructors. Therefore, the services of the
Vocational Instructors appointed prior to the issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE) Department, dated
06.01.2009 and whose appointments have been approved by the
Department are protected. They are entitled to all the benefits as
per the Service Rules. Regarding pending proposals for approval
of appointments, date of appointment, post sanctioned, eligibility
and other criteria as per Rules are to be taken into consideration.
16.Asfar as the Vocational Teachers appointed after
G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE) Department, dated
06.01.2009, their services are not protected. In fact, these
Vocational Teachers were appointed in the vacancies that arose on
account of the retirement, death or resignation of the Vocational
Instructors, who were in service. Thus, their appointments cannot
be protected since the post of Vocational Instructors came to be
abolished from the date on which G.O.Ms.No.9 was issued ie., on
06.01.2009. If any such appointments were made, it must be with
the prior permission of the Government. If such permission was
granted by the Education Department, then those cases can be
protected. However, all other appointments made to the post of
Vocational Instructors after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.9, School
Education (VE) Department, dated 06.01.2009, are not protected
and the Government is not obligated to approve these
appointments and grant aid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
17.In respect of individual cases falling within the ambit of
the principles considered by this Court in the aforementioned
paragraphs, those individuals if they are otherwise eligible and
falling within the eligible category, then they are at liberty to
approach the authorities. In all other cases where appointments
are made to the Vocational Instructors post after issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE) Department, dated
06.01.2009, approval of appointments cannot be claimed as a
matter of right.
18.It is made clear that if those Vocational Instructors
appointed prior to G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE)
Department, dated 06.01.2009 are qualified, appointed in the
sanctioned post and eligible as per Rules, their proposals are to
be considered in accordance with Act and Rules.”
15. The Government Orders referred by us in the earlier paragraphs
indicate that the sanctioned post of Vocational Instructors pertains to the
individual teachers and the same is not attached to the institution in which they
were engaged. Once the person retires or resigns for any other reason, the post
is kept vacant and it is reverted back to the Department. The Division Bench, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
the judgment referred above, has discussed the issue involved in this appeal in
detail and we are agreeing with the views expressed therein. The judgment of
the Division Bench is squarely applicable to the present case.
16. The respondent School has also relied on few orders passed by this
Court, wherein, this Court has directed the Department to accord approval of
appointment to the Vocational Instructors on the basis that these
posts are sanctioned to the School and once the incumbent was retired or
resigned or the post became vacant, the Management is entitled to fill the same.
17. We are not able to agree with the views taken in those matters. Those
orders could not be made applicable to the facts of the present case, since the
Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that the posts were earlier granted to the
incumbent Vocational Instructors by taking a sympathetic view so as to
facilitate the earlier incumbents to complete their tenure.
18. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated
dated 23.04.2019 in W.P.(MD).No.7658 of 2017, directing the Department to
accord approval for the appointment of Tmt.A.Celin Mary as Vocational
Instructor with effect from 01.12.2015, is hereby set set aside and the Writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
Appeal stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
29.08.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
Lm
Judgment made in
29.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:56 pm )
