Madras High Court
Ponmalar vs The Secretary To The Government on 10 March, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.A.MD) No.489 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A(MD)No.489 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.3830 to 3832 of 2025
Ponmalar ... Appellant/Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Department of School Education,
St.George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Compound,
College Road,
Chennai.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )
W.A.MD) No.489 of 2025
5.The Correspondent,
West Tirunelveli Higher Secondary School,
Nallur,
Tenkasi District-627 853.
6.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District.
7.The District Educational Officer,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District. ...Respondents/
Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters of Patent Appeal,
against the order dated 02.09.2021 made in W.P.No.10129 of 2021 passed by this
Court.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Suresh Kumar
For R1 to R4, : Mr.J.Ashok,
6 and 7 Additional Government Pleader
For R5 : Mr.H.Arumugam
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
The appellant herein, on the strength of the appointment order issued by the
Management on 01.07.2019, was posting as Tamil Pandit in the time scale of pay
of Rs.36,400/-(36,400 – 115700) Level 16, Cell.1., had approached this Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )
the year 2021 seeking Mandamus to direct the third and fourth respondents to
approve the appointment as a Teacher in the minority educational institution.
2.The contention of the State is that her appointment was not intimated by
the Management seeking approval. Further, the post is not a sanctioned post to get
grant from the State. The Management has also stated that for exigency purpose,
she was appointed, but no proposal to approve her appointment was sent by the
Management, since the post was not a sanctioned post. At the time of
appointment, vide order dated 16.06.2021, there was an order of interim
injunction for a period of four weeks as the writ petitioner has made out a prima
facie case. Further, when the matter was taken up for final hearing, on considering
the submission made by the counsels, this Court found that the writ petitioner
appointed as BT Assistant Tamil Pandit on 01.07.2019, but the time scale was not
considered for a sanctioned post and also the institution was suffering redeploying
the surplus teacher in the respondent School. In such circumstances, since there is
no material to show the proposal for approval pending with the Government, the
Court has passed the following Order:
“6.In view of the above submissions, this Court passes the
following orders:
(i)It is open to the petitioner to make a representation to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )
Educational Authority within a period of one week from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii)If any representation is made by the petitioner as stated
above and any proposal dated 08.07.2019 is pending, the
Educational Authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate
orders after providing due opportunity to the School Management,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
(iii)If no such proposal is pending, the Educational Authority
shall communicate the same to the parties concerned forthwith.
(iv)Till final decision is taken in this matter by the Educational
Authority as stated above, status quo as on date shall be maintained
by both the parties.
(v)No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.”
3.The said order is challenged by the writ petitioner in the writ appeal on
the ground that the proposal to approve her appointment already pending with the
Department dated 08.07.2019 and the same has not been considered and disposed
of. Status quo orderd by the learned Single Judge not been complied with by the
newly elected administrative body by not producing the documents which will
disclose that the writ petitioner been taking class, since her appointment also been
deputed for election duty. The Department cannot keep the proposal pending send
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )
by the erstwhile Management nor the new Management continue the factum of
forwarding the request for approval sent by the erstwhile management.
4.On considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant and the submissions made by the learend Government Advocate and the
learned counsel appearing for the Management, this Court finds that the factum
whether the appointment of the appellnat was as against the sanctioned post or
not, is not clear. In this case, the Management says it is not a sanctioned post. The
learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the erstwhile
Management has not done anything to show request made for approval. The
request and reminders had emanated only from the employee but not from the
Management that too after filing of the writ petition and after the interim order. If
there is no sanctioned post in the fifth respondent Management, there is no
question of approving her appointment by the Educational Department. It is an
issue between the writ petitioner employee and the Management run by the
minority institution. The role of the State will come into picture only if there is a
grant to the said post or the appointment if any was in accordance with law.
5.The Writ of this nature, without material to show that the petitioner was
appointed in a sanctioned post but contrarily, there was a move by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )
Government to deploy the surplus staff in the fifth respondent School, exercise of
writ jurisdiction is not permissible. The learned single Judge order therefore
uphold. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. However, the dismissal
of the writ appeal will not stand in the way of the Management to consider the
retention of the petitioner in service under the Self-finance scheme, if available or
consider in future for appointment in sanctioned post. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[G.J., J.] & [R.P., J.]
10.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Ns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
Ns
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Department of School Education,
St.George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Compound,
College Road,
Chennai.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
5.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District.
6.The District Educational Officer,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District.
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.3830 to 3832 of 2025
10.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )
