Madras High Court
R.Anitha Selva Jothi vs The District Educational Officer ... on 14 July, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.18687 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.(MD)No.18687 of 2025
R.Anitha Selva Jothi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Educational Officer (Elementary),
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Block Educational Officer,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Correspondent,
TDTA Primary School,
Parpanathapuram,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in
the third respondent School with effect from 01.03.2018 with salary and
all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Siddharthan
Additional Government Pleader
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:33 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.18687 of 2025
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as a 'Secondary
Grade Teacher' in the third respondent School, with effect from
01.03.2018, along with salary and all consequential benefits.
2. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as a 'Secondary
Grade Teacher' on 01.03.2018 in the third respondent school. The third
respondent forwarded a proposal for approval of her appointment to the
first respondent through the second respondent, enclosing all the relevant
documents. Though the proposal was initially returned for want of
additional particulars, it was later resubmitted after addressing the
queries. The school has been sanctioned two teaching posts and the
petitioner was appointed within the sanctioned strength. Now, only two
teachers, including the petitioner, are working in the school and as per
Government norms, two teachers are mandatory for Elementary Schools.
Hence, there is no impediment in approving her appointment. A fresh
proposal was again submitted on 29.05.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:33 pm )
3. Further, the petitioner has been serving continuously for the past
seven years without salary. Despite repeated representations, the
respondents have stated that approval is pending due to the deployment
process of surplus teachers. However, the Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli, issued proceedings on 26.06.2019 stating that the
deployment process had been completed by transferring surplus teachers
to need-based posts. Further, for the academic years 2022–2023 and
2023–2024, the deployment process was completed on 11.04.2023 and
05.02.2024 respectively. Therefore, after completion of the deployment
process, there is no justification for denying approval. The Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 31.03.2021, in W.A.
(MD)No.76 of 2019 etc. batch, held that appointments made before
31.03.2021 in sanctioned vacancies with qualified candidates must be
approved. In line with that decision, W.A.No.253 of 2025 was allowed on
29.01.2025, directing approval of a similarly situated teacher's
appointment. Regarding the requirement of Teachers Eligibility Test
(TET), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1865 of
2025, dated 24.06.2025, held that G.O.Ms.No.181, which mandates TET,
is not applicable to minority institutions. Based on the above facts and
legal precedents, the petitioner submits that she is entitled to approval of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:33 pm )
her appointment and has approached this Court, seeking appropriate
relief.
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that, considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, it would suffice if this Court directs the first
respondent to consider the proposal submitted by the third respondent
school, in the light of the judgments passed by this Court in W.A.No.253
of 2025, dated 29.01.2025 [The Correspondent, Danish Mission Primary
School, Mampzhapattu, Villupuram District vs. The Director of
Elementary Education and others], and W.A.No.1865 of 2025, dated
24.06.2025 [The Director of Elementary Education and others vs.
Madrasa-E-Azam Government Aided Primary School, Fort Vaniyambadi,
Thirupattur District] and to pass appropriate orders within a time frame
to be fixed by this Court.
5. Considering the limited request made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the case,
directs the first respondent to consider the proposal submitted by the
third respondent School, in the light of the aforesaid judgments relied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:33 pm )
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on its own merits and in
accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
14.07.2025
NCC : Yes / No (1/9)
Index : Yes / No
smn2
To
1.The District Educational Officer (Elementary),
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Block Educational Officer,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Correspondent,
TDTA Primary School,
Parpanathapuram,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:33 pm )
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
smn2
14.07.2025
(1/9)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:33 pm )
