Madras High Court
The Director Of Elementary Education vs A.Gnana Mallika on 25 June, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
2025:MHC:1471
W.A.(MD) No.538 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
W.A.(MD) No.538 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.3739 of 2020
1.The Director of Elementary Education
College Road, Chennai-600 006
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer
Tuticorin, Tuticorin District
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer
Sathankulam Union
Tuticorin District ... Appellants
-vs-
1.A.Gnana Mallika
2.The Correspondent
St.Joseph's R.C.Middle School
Kadakulam-628 656
Tuticorin District ... Respondents
_______________
Page 1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:41:41 pm )
W.A.(MD) No.538 of 2020
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 09.12.2019, passed in W.P.(MD) No.6847 of 2015, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar
for M/s.Isaac Chamber for R1
Father.Savarimuthu
for M/s.Father Xavier Associates for R2
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
Under assail is the writ order, dated 09.12.2019, passed in W.P.
(MD) No.6847 of 2015.
2. The Education Department is the appellant in the present writ
appeal.
3. The first respondent – Gnana Mallika instituted the writ
proceedings challenging the proceedings of the second appellant herein, dated
25.10.2014 returning the proposal submitted by the Management of the
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:41:41 pm )
second respondent – School seeking approval for her appointment in the post
of Sewing Mistress (Pre-Vocational Instructor) citing students' strength and
consequently, seeking a direction to the second appellant herein to approve
her appointment in the said post with effect from the date of her appointment
on 24.06.2013 with all attendant benefits including arrears of salary and
allowance.
4. Admittedly, the first respondent herein was appointed as
Sewing Mistress (Pre-Vocational Instructor) by the Management of the second
respondent – School. The authorities concerned have considered the proposal
submitted by the Management of the second respondent – School for approval
of the appointment of the first respondent in the said post and rejected the
same vide proceedings dated 25.10.2014 mainly on the ground that 12 girl
students alone were studying in the second respondent – School from sixth
standard to eighth standard during the relevant point of time. Aggrieved over
the same, the first respondent instituted the writ proceedings and the Writ
Court, by the impugned order set aside the proceedings of the second
appellant dated 25.10.2014 and directed the appellants herein to approve the
appointment of the first respondent as Sewing Mistress (Pre-Vocational
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:41:41 pm )
Instructor) with effect from the date of her appointment i.e., from 24.06.2013
with all attendant benefits including the arrears of salary and allowance.
Challenging the same, the Education Department is before this Court by way
of this writ appeal.
5. The issues to be considered in this case are as follows:
(i) Whether non-compliance of the mandatory
requirements contemplated under the
Government Scheme can be a ground to approve
the appointments resulting in financial
implications to the State Exchequer.
(ii) Whether the High Court, in exercise of the power
of judicial review, can grant the relief of approval
of appointment in violation of the Government
norms fixed for grant of such approvals of
appointments, which may result in causing
prejudice to the financial interest of the State.
(iii) Whether the Management can appoint Pre-
Vocational Instructors, without having
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:41:41 pm )
prescribed students strength as per the
Government Policy. In the event of any such
appointments contrary to the Government
Policy, such appointments will provide a right to
secure approval from the Education
Department.
6. Let us now consider the Government Scheme for appointment
of Pre-Vocational Instructor (Sewing Mistress) in the Middle Schools.
7. The first Government Order, in this regard, is G.O.(Ms) No.132,
School Education (Ml) Department, dated 27.04.1998. The said Government
Order reveals that appointment of Pre-Vocational Instructor was banned by
the Government on account of certain practical situations prevailed during the
relevant point of time. Representations were received from various quarters
stating that the post of Pre-Vocational Instructor is to be filled up. Taking into
consideration such representations, the said Government Order came to be
issued by granting sanction to fill up 168 vacant posts of Pre-Vocational
Instructors and as per the said Government Order, the girl students strength
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:41:41 pm )
must be above 250 in a school. In other words, for 250 girl students in a
school from sixth standard to eighth standard, one post of Pre-Vocational
Instructor can be filled up.
8. Subsequently, the Government issued another Government
Order in G.O.(Ms) No.39, School Education (D1) Department, dated
21.03.2003. In the said Government Order, referring to G.O.(Ms) No.132,
School Education (Ml) Department, dated 27.04.1998, further guidelines were
issued to fill up the post of Pre-Vocational Instructor, in the Schools where
250 girl students are studying from sixth standard to eighth standard.
However, the norms fixed in G.O.(Ms) No.132, dated 27.04.1998, have not
been altered. Thus, the policy remains that 250 girl students must be
studying in a particular school from sixth standard to eighth standard for
filling up the post of Pre-Vocational Instructor.
9. Admittedly, the Government Order issued in G.O.(Ms) No.132,
dated 27.04.1998 and G.O.(Ms) No.39, dated 21.03.2003, remain
unchallenged. As far as the norms fixed by the Government for appointment
of Pre-Vocational Instructor are concerned, the same cannot be read down by
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:41:41 pm )
the Courts nor interpreted so as to dilute or violate the norms fixed by the
Government regarding students strength. In the event of reading down such
policy decision, it will result in financial loss to the State Exchequer.
10. The very purpose and object of fixing norms is to ensure that
the services of the teachers in a particular school are fully utilized and as far
as the Pre-Vocational Instructors are concerned, they may take one or two
classes in a week for one class. Therefore, by making a proper assessment,
the Government has fixed the students strength as 250 girl students from
sixth standard to eighth standard for filling up one post of Pre-Vocational
Instructor. Fixing norms for the students strength and for appointment of
teachers are the prerogative of the Government and such policy decisions are
taken based on the reports of the educational authorities / expert reports.
Court cannot substitute its views in such matters and fix a new criteria so as
to dilute the norms fixed by the Government.
11. In the present case, admittedly, twelve girl students alone
were studying in the second respondent – School from sixth standard to eighth
standard during the relevant point time. Thus, the educational authorities
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:41:41 pm )
rejected the proposal submitted by the Management of the second respondent
– School for approval of the appointment of first respondent.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has relied
on some decisions, which all are factually distinguishable and in one such
judgments, the norms fixed by the Government has been read down by the
Courts, which, in the opinion of this Court, is unnecessary. Such policy
decisions fixing norms for appointment of teachers, since prerogative of the
Government, is to be scrupulously followed and the High Court is not expected
to reduce the students strength or otherwise.
13. In this context, it is relevant to consider two decisions of the
Division Bench of this Court, which are all falling in the same line of the policy
decision of the Government in G.O.(Ms) No.132, dated 27.04.1998 and G.O.
(Ms) No.39, dated 21.03.2003 and the relevant portion of the Judgment dated
05.06.2025 in W.A.(MD) No.441 of 2019 (State vs. The Secretary, EVA
Vallimuthu High School) is extracted hereunder:
“11. The issue on hand has been elaborately
considered by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment
dated 29.04.2025 in W.A.(MD) No.1017 of 2025 (cited supra).
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:41:41 pm )
The relevant portions of the said judgment are extracted
hereunder:
“4. ... As per G.O.Ms.No.132 School Education
(M1) Department, dated 27.04.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.104
School Education (D1) Department, dated 12.07.2002, to
fill up the post of Craft Teacher (Sewing) in aided
schools there must be 250 “girl students” in standards 6
to 8 of the school. Whereas the girls students’ strength
in the petitioner School in standards 6 to 8 is as follows:
As on Standards 6 7 8 Total 01.08.2019 20 20 20 66
Since the girl students’ strength in standards 6 to 8 of
the school is below 250, the school is not entitled to the
post of Craft Teacher in Sewing. So, that post of Craft
Teacher was not included in the staff fixation statement
of the school for the academic year 2019-2020 by the
Chief Educational Officer, Tenkasi. The girl students’
strength of standards 6 to 8 of the school was only 66
for which no post of Craft Teacher in Sewing is
admissible. Since the petitioner school has no sufficient
girl students’ strength in standards 6 to 8 as stipulated
in G.O.Ms.No. 132, School Education (M1) Department,
dated 27.04.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.104, School
Education (D1) Department, dated 12.07.2002, the
school is not entitled to the post of Craft Teacher
(Sewing). Hence, the said post of Craft Teacher (Sewing)
was struck off in the staff fixation order dated
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:41:41 pm )
14.08.2020 of the school for the year 2019-2020.
Hence, the order of staff fixation issued by the CEO,
Tenkasi, is just and reasonable and it is not arbitrary as
alleged by the petitioner, hence the respondents prayed
to dismiss the writ petition.
...
...
12. ... For granting the post of Craft Teacher
(sewing) then the school ought to have 250 girl students,
but the school is having only 66 girl students. Therefore,
originally even though the school was granted the post
of Craft Teacher (sewing), based on the students’
strength the school is not entitled to the said post.
...
14. The appellants relied on the judgment
rendered in the case of the District Educational
Officer and Another Vs. P.Pon Selvi and Another,
in W.A. (MD)No.1063 of 2020, dated 27.11.2024,
wherein it is held as under:
“6.We are not persuaded to agree
with the said contention. Our attention was
drawn to G.O.(Ms)No.132 School Education
Department dated 27.04.1998. It is this
government order that is holding the field.
It reads as follows:
....
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:41:41 pm )
7.A bare reading of the aforesaid
government order would indicate that a
given number of posts were sanctioned by
the Government for the purpose of catering
to those schools where strength of middle
school was 250 and more. In the case on
hand, during the relevant time, the total
strength of the classes from 6 to 8 (both
boys and girls) was only 86. The schedule
to the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 also
states where admission of children in
classes 6 to 8 is above 100, there has to be
a part time instructor for work education.
The students strength maintained in the
second respondent school during the
relevant time was below the threshold
mentioned in the government order as well
as the schedule to the Act.
8.We have departed from the view
taken by the other Hon'ble Division
Benches only for one reason. The learned
Government Advocate for the appellants
pointed out that the number of classes
allotted for such teachers would be three
per week per section. In this case, the
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:41:41 pm )
appointed teacher will have to cater to only
three classes. Each class has one section
each. The sixth standard had the strength
of 28 students. The seventh standard had
the strength of 31 students. The eighth
standard had the strength of 26 students.
Which means each class had one section.
In other words, the appointed teacher
would have only nine classes maximum per
week. We are of the view that the issue
should be approached not only from the
perspective of students strength but also
from the perspective of the number of
classes which an appointed teacher will
have to handle. This aspect was not
brought to the notice of the earlier Hon'ble
Division Benches.
9.It is the State which is the pay
master. The salary of the appointed teacher
will have to come from the State exchequer.
When a teacher will be having only
maximum nine classes per week, it would
not be reasonable to direct approval of
such an appointment. It is for this reason,
the order impugned in this writ appeal is
not sustainable. It is set aside and the writ
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:41:41 pm )
appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
This Court totally agrees with the aforesaid judgment
and the reason stated in the judgment for deviating from
the earlier judgments. This Court unequivocally holding
that the post can be sanctioned only if the school is
having prescribed students’ strength. As well as if the
teacher is having 28 periods per week. If not, the school
is not entitled to the said post.
15. In the case of the State of Bihar v.
Sachindra Narayan, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 803,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the discretionary
nature of a grant and observed that “the release of
grant is in discretion of the grantor and cannot be forced
by the grantee.” Further in the case of State of Odisha
and another vs. Anup Kumar Senapati and another
[Civil Appeal No.7295 of 2019], in paragraph No.8, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that that grantin-aid
cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Therefore, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the schools
cannot claim grant-in-aid as a matter of right and the
same is based on conditions. If the conditions are not
fulfilled, then the government cannot be compelled to
grant the post, to grant approval of appointment, to
disburse grant-in-aid.”
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:41:41 pm )
14. However, the Writ Court has mainly proceeded on the ground
that filling up the post of Pre-Vocational Instructor is essential and
accordingly, granted the relief of approval of appointment. Further, the Writ
Court has stated that fixing of students strength is to be construed as
directory and not mandatory. Such a finding is running counter to the
established principles of law. Once criterias for appointment of teachers are
fixed by the Government, it has to be followed and Courts can neither
substitute its views in such matters nor analyse the necessity for fixing
students strength, which is based on the reports of the experts. For these
reasons, this Court is inclined to interferer with the writ order.
15. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed and the writ order,
dated 09.12.2019, passed in W.P.(MD) No.6847 of 2015, is set aside. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.]
25.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:41:41 pm )
krk
To:
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Sathankulam Union,
Tuticorin District.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:41:41 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
krk
and
25.06.2025
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:41:41 pm )
