Madras High Court
The Correspondent vs The Director Of Elementary Education on 29 January, 2025
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar, C.Saravanan
W.A.No.253 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.No.253 of 2025 and
C.M.P.No.1845 of 2025
The Correspondent,
Danish Mission Primary School,
Mampzhapattu,
Villupuram District. ... Appellant
-Vs-
1. The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Villupuram District.
3. The Block Educational Officer,
Villupuram District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the
order in W.P.No.39138 of 2024 dated 20.12.2024 and allow the above writ
appeal.
For Appellant : Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Mahendran
For Respondents : Mr.U.M.Ravichandran
Special Government Pleader
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
W.A.No.253 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This intra Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the
writ Court dated 20.12.2024 in W.P.No.39138 of 2024.
2. A Secondary Grade Teacher post which was vacant in the appellant
School was filled up and the School has also sought for approval from the
second respondent, the second respondent refused to give approval by order
dated 21.03.2022. As against the said order, when the writ petition was filed,
the writ Court was of the opinion that, after 2 ½ years of passing the order
impugned before the writ Court since the writ petition has been filed without
exhausting the appellate remedy, the learned Judge directed the writ petitioner
to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority and by making such
observation and direction, the writ petition was disposed through the impugned
order dated 20.12.2024.
3. Assailing the same, Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant would contend that, as against the order of refusal
of approval of appointment of Teacher in a sanctioned post in an Aided School,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
there has been no appeal provided either under the Tamil Nadu Recognised
Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 or the Rules, 1974 made thereunder,
therefore the only remedy available for the School concerned is to approach
this Court by filing a writ petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. When that being the position, the view taken by the learned Judge by
driving the appellant School to go before the Appellate Authority is beyond the
scope of the said Act as well as the Rules and therefore, the order impugned is
liable to be interfered with, she contended.
5. We have gone through the said order of the learned Judge which is
impugned herein and also the relevant provision of the Act as well as the Rules
made thereunder.
6. Even though some appeal remedy has been provided under Rule 29,
i.e., only in respect of some other issues which are governed under Sections 6,
8, 11, 12, 14, 22, 29, 31 & 32 of the Act, however the approval of the
appointments are normally would be made by the Educational Authorities
under Section 15 of the Act and if any such approval is given or refusal is made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
against such order, no such appeal remedy since has been provided under Rule
29 of the said Rules as stated supra, the said direction given by the learned
Judge driving the appellant / writ petitioner to go before the Appellate
Authority may be erroneous. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to
interfere with the order impugned.
7. It is further to be noted that, as far as the reasoning which has been
given for refusal of approval is concerned, it has been refused because of the
alleged excess Teachers in the School concerned.
8. If that being the position, if the appointment has been made prior to
31.03.2021, the date on which the judgment has been rendered in a batch of
writ appeals and writ petitions by a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of
this Court, which has become final in the matter of Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai-9 and others Vs. Iruthaya Amali and another in W.A.(MD)Nos.76
of 2019 etc., batch, such an appointment should be approved provided if the
Teacher is qualified to hold the post and if the appointment is otherwise in
order and after approval is given since the Department finds that there is an
excess Teacher available in the School concerned, such a Teacher approved can
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
be redeployed to any needy school, this is the legal position which has been
enunciated in the said judgment dated 31.03.2021.
9. This decision also has been reiterated by yet another Division bench of
the Madurai Bench of this Court in the matter of The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort
St.George, Chennai and others Vs. The Correspondent, St.Joseph's Convent
Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari in W.A.(MD)No.2134 of
2024 where the following observations has been made by the Division Bench:
"3. The contention of the Education Department
before the Writ Court was that since there was surplus
teachers in the corporate management, the approval was
refused. 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 of appointments where there is a
surplus was held inoperative by this Court. However, in
Iruthayamali, the Division Bench held that approval of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
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. Therefore, it follows that all appointments made
prior to that date to a sanctioned post have to be
approved and after approval the department must take
action for redeploying the teacher in the needy schools.
4. In view of the above settled position of law, we
do not think we could interfere with the direction of the
learned single Judge made in the writ petition. The writ
appeal therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
10. Therefore, even on merits also the rejection order made by the second
respondent which was impugned before the writ Court would not be sustained
in the legal scrutiny.
11. In that view of the matter, the following orders are passed in the writ
appeal:
(i) that the order impugned passed by the writ Court is
set aside. As a sequel for the reasons stated herein above, the
order impugned before the writ Court dated 21.03.2022 also
is set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
(ii) Resultantly, there shall be a direction to the
respondents, especially the respondents 2 and 3 to reconsider
the proposal submitted by the appellant School with regard to
the appointment of the Secondary Grade Teacher one
J.Vijayakumar with effect from 01.02.2021 and if the
appointment is otherwise in order, the same shall be
approved and after approval, if the respondents find that
there has been excess Teacher in the appellant School, it is
open to the respondents to redeploy the Teacher to be
approved to any needy School immediately. However such a
redeployment would no way hamper the service prospects of
the Teacher concerned including the backwages with effect
from the date of appointment.
12. With all these observations and directions, this Writ Appeal is
ordered accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N., J.)
29.01.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
vji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
To
1. The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus,
College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Villupuram District.
3. The Block Educational Officer,
Villupuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
vji
and
29.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
