Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs The Correspondent on 24 September, 2025
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
2025:MHC:2269
W.A(MD).No.506 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 15.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD).No.506 of 2020
and
CMP(MD).Nos.3584 and 4042 of 2020
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its Secretary
Department of School Education
Fort.St.George, 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
Madurai, Madurai District.
5.The District Educational Officer
Madurai, Madurai District. ....Appellants/Respondents
Vs
The Correspondent
St.Joseph's Girls Higher Secondary School
Madurai 600 009
Madurai District ....Respondent/Petitioner
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 04:40:19 pm )
W.A(MD).No.506 of 2020
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the
order dated 19-03-2019 in WP(MD).No.6396 of 2019 and allow the writ
appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Amjadkhan
Government Advocate
For Respondent : M/s.A.Amala
JUDGMENT
(Made by R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.)
The present writ appeal has been preferred by the State challenging the
order passed by this Court in WP(MD).No.6396 of 2019 dated 19.03.2019
wherein this Court has directed the Educational Authority to approve the
appointment of Vocational Instructor in the Accountancy and Auditing stream
with effect from 01.06.2018.
(A).Factual Matrix:
2.The writ petitioner School is an aided minority institution. The said
school was granted permission by the Chief Educational Officer by way of
proceedings dated 27.06.1980 to offer General and Vocational Education. As
per the said proceedings, the School was permitted to run two vocational
streams namely Accountancy and Dress Designing and Making.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 04:40:19 pm )
3.The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.525 School
Education Department dated 29.12.1997 fixing norms for assessment of more
for teaching posts in private schools. As per Clause-IV(d) of the said order,
for vocational streams, two posts of full time teachers will be sanctioned
irrespective of number of courses.
4.One Ms.S.Anie Catherine who was working as a Vocational
Instructor in Accountancy and Auditing stream had attained superannuation
on 31.05.2018. In the said vacancy, the petitioner management had appointed
Ms.K.Sahaya Prabha as Vocational Instructor with effect from 01.06.2018.
The management has sent a proposal for approval on 28.11.2018. The District
Educational Officer had passed an order rejecting the approval on the
following grounds:
a)While issuing staff fixation order for the year 2017-2018
on 30.10.2017, in Condition No.8, it has been pointed that any
vacancy for the post of Vocational Instructor could not be filled
up.
b)The Director of the School Education in his proceedings
dated 28.08.2003 had issued proceedings that the vacancy arising
out of retirement / death of Vocational Instructor should not be
filled up.
5.The above said writ petition came to be filed challenging the 8th
condition in the staff fixation order dated 30.10.2017 and the consequential
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 04:40:19 pm )
order of the District Educational Officer, Madurai dated –02.2019 wherein
the proposal for approval was rejected.
6.The writ Court relying upon the decision of the Division Bench
Judgment of this Court in WA(MD).No.1494 of 2017 (The State of Tamil
Nadu and other Vs. The Secretary/Correspondent) dated 01.03.2018 allowed
the writ petition and directed the authorities to approve the appointment of
Ms.K.Sahaya Prabha as Vocational Instructor with effect from 01.06.2018.
This order is put to challenge by the State in the present writ appeal.
(B)Submissions made on the side of the either counsels are as
follows:
7.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants
submitted that under G.O.Ms.No.9 School Education (VE) Department dated
06.01.2009, there is a specific ban for appointment of new Vocational
Instructor either by School Management or by the Parents Teachers
Association. He had further submitted that for opening a new Vocational
course, prior permission of the Government has to be obtained. Therefore on
and after 06.01.2009, no new Vocational course can be started by the
management and no Vocational Instructor appointment can be made. In the
present case, the incumbent having been appointed on 01.06.2018, it cannot
be approved.
8.The learned Government Advocate has also relied upon the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 04:40:19 pm )
proceedings of the Director of School Education dated 28.08.2003 wherein, it
is pointed out that as and when a Vocational Instructor is promoted, the said
post would revert back to the department. He relied upon the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in WA(MD).No532 of 2019 etc.,batch case (The
Secretary to Government Department of School Education, Chennai and
others Vs. Lovisal Roselin and another) dated 09.06.2025 wherein a
Co-ordinate Bench has held that the appointment order of Vocational Teacher
after 06.01.2009 are not protected and they cannot be approved. He also
relied upon another judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in WA(MD).No.935
of 2020 (The State of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education, Chennai
and others Vs. The Correspondent, St.Anne's Girls Higher Secondary School)
dated 29.08.2025 wherein decision of the WA(MD).No.532 of 2019 etc.,batch
case has been extracted and the Bench has proceeded to hold 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.
The Bench has further pointed out that once the person retires or resigns for
any other reason, the post is kept vacant and it is reverted back to the
Department.
9.The learned Government Advocate has also relied upon a judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.12310 of 2024 and
submitted that the order passed by this Court in WA(MD).No.1494 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 04:40:19 pm )
(relied upon by the writ Court) has been set aside and in such circumstances,
the writ appeal may be allowed.
10.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for School Management
submitted that the order of the Director of School Education dated
28.08.2003 is not a general instructions but it relates to a clarification issued
with regard to a particular Higher Secondary School. Therefore, the same
cannot be relied upon by the authority. She further submitted that as per
G.O.Ms.9, School Education (VE) Department, dated 06.01.2009 prohibition
is restricted to starting of new Vocational courses. It does not speak about the
abolition of the Vocational streams which have been sanctioned by the
authorities. When the Vocational streams continue and the students are
admitted to the said courses, the authorities cannot deny approval for
appointment of a Vocational Instructor to the said course.
11.The learned counsel for the respondent had further submitted that
the order the Co-ordinate Bench in WA(MD).No.532 of 2019 etc, batch case
or WA(MD).No.935 of 2020 have not taken into consideration of the fact that
the State has not abolished Vocational courses after 06.01.2009. According to
her, the students are admitted to the Vocational courses even today and they
are receiving all the Government benefits. She further submitted that books
are issued to the said students and they are appearing for the Board
Examination for the said Vocational courses. Hence, according to her, when
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 04:40:19 pm )
the Vocational courses have not been abolished, the authorities cannot
contend that the Instructor cannot be appointed to take classes for those
Vocational streams. She had further submitted that the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court refers to a non-minority institution wherein the appointment
order specifically pointed out that the post would get lapsed on the retirement
of a particular teacher. However, in the present case, when the approval was
granted to the appointment of one Ms.S.Anie Catherine, no such condition
was imposed. In such circumstances, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
12.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent management also
relied upon the staff fixation orders issued for the academic year 2019- 2020
till 2024-2025 wherein the post of Vocational Instructor is shown as a
sanctioned post. She has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment in
WA(MD).No.6057 of 2024 dated 09.05.2025 in support of her contentions.
Hence, she prayed for sustaining the order passed by the writ Court.
13.We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side
and perused the material records.
(C).Discussion:
14.The Government Advocate's submission justifying the non-approval
of Vocational Instructor is solely based upon G.O.Ms.No.9 School Education
(VE) Department dated 06.01.2009. According to the State, under the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 04:40:19 pm )
Government Order, the vocational streams of education have been abolished
in the Higher Secondary Course. Therefore, for appointment of any
Vocational Instructor, approval cannot be granted after 06.01.2009.
15.A perusal of the said Government Order reveals that the
Government has only prohibited starting of new Vocational Courses from the
academic year 2007-2008 and Vocational Instructors should not be appointed
either by School Management or Parents Teachers Association. If any
institution wants to start a new Vocational Course, prior permission of the
Government is necessary.
16. A close scanning of the above Government Order discloses that
there is no abolition of existing Vocational streams which have been already
sanctioned by the Government. When the Vocational streams have not been
abolished, the State cannot refuse to approve the appointment of Vocational
Instructors to the said streams.
17.It is also not in dispute that the State is publishing syllabus, issues
hall tickets and conducts Board Examination for all the Vocational streams
even as on today. The Government has also extended all the benefits to the
students admitted to the Vocational streams like supply of free books, bicycle,
lap-top etc.,
18.The private schools were earlier regulated under Tamil Nadu
Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. The new Act namely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 04:40:19 pm )
Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018 came into force on
13.01.2023. The Rules under the said Act were published in the Government
Gazettee in G.O.Ms.14 School Education (MS) on 13.01.2003. Rule 28(4)(b)
deals with minimum qualification to be possessed by a teaching or
non-teaching staff of every aided private school shall be as prescribed in
Annexure IV-A and Annexure IV-B respectively. Serial Nos.13 to 25 deal
with educational qualification required for Vocational Instructors under
various streams. Serial No.25 deals with Vocational Instructor for the stream
of Accountancy and Auditing. For the said Vocational stream educational
qualification of bachelor degree in Commerce has been prescribed. Therefore,
it is clear that the existing Vocational streams have not been abolished under
G.O.Ms.No.9 School Education (VE) Department dated 06.01.2009. Had
they been abolished in the year 2009, educational qualification for various
Vocational streams would not have been prescribed under 2018 Act which
came into force on 13.01.2023.
19.In the impugned order, the proceedings of the Director of School
Education dated 28.08.2003 has been cited as one of the reasons for not
approving the appointment. A perusal of the said proceedings reveals that the
Chief Educational Officer, Coimbatore has sought clarification with regard to
granting approval to the appointment of a Vocational Instructor in a Higher
Secondary School. The Director had issued proceedings directing the Chief
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 04:40:19 pm )
Educational Officer, Coimbatore to grant approval subject to the condition
that on his retirement, the post would get reverted back to the Government. It
is not known under what circumstances such a clarification was issued. It is
not based upon any Government Order or any statutory provisions or rules
annexed there to. It is true that if such a condition has been imposed at the
time of granting approval to an appointment, further appointment cannot be
made when the incumbent retires or get promoted.
20.In present case, we have perused the order of approval granted to
the appointment of Ms.S.Anie Catherine under the proceedings of the Chief
Educational Officer, Madurai dated 17.06.2003 wherein the appointment of
Ms.S.Anie Catherine has been approved. In the said approval order, there is
no condition that on her retirement, the post would get reverted back to the
Government. Therefore, the proceedings of the Director of School Education
dated 28.08.2003 is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
21.The norms for assessment of for teaching posts insofar as
recognised private schools are concerned, they are still governed by
G.O.Ms.No.525 School Education (D1) Department dated 29.12.1997. As
per Clause-IV(d), two posts of full time teachers will be sanctioned for
Vocational streams irrespective of number of courses. This Government
Order has not yet been superseded by any other Government Orders or by
statutory provisions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 04:40:19 pm )
22.The Chief Educational Officer, Maduri has issued staff fixation
order for the respondent school every year. The staff fixation order for the
academic years 2019-2020, 2022-2023, 2023-2024 and 2024 -2025 reveal
that the post of Vocational Instructor is sanctioned for Accountancy and
Auditing stream. After sanctioning, permitting admission of students and
conducting Board Examination for them, the State cannot contend that the
Vocational stream have been totally abolished in the Higher Secondary
Schools through out the State of Tamil Nadu.
23. A Division Bench judgement of this Court in W.A.No.3057 of 2024
dated 09.05.2025 had issued directions to approve the appointment of a
Vocational Instructor (General Machinist) to a minority institution. This order
has been complied with by the Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai
by his proceedings dated 05.06.2025. In fact, Ms.K.Sahaya Prabha whose
appointment is now sought to be approved has been appointed as a Hall
Invigilator to supervise the Board Examinations.
24.At present, the School is having 40 students in the XI standard and
28 students in the XII standard of Auditing Vocational stream. Therefore,
there cannot be any dispute that there are more than 60 students in the
Vocational stream as on today.
25.The learned Government Advocate had relied upon a Division
Bench judgment of this Court in WA(MD).No.532 of 2019 dated 09.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 04:40:19 pm )
to contend that the approval cannot be granted to the Vocational Instructors
who were appointed after 06.01.2009. The said judgment has been followed
by the other Co-ordinate Bench in WA(MD).No.935 of 2020 dated
29.08.2025. The Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018 or Rules
thereunder (wherein qualification for Vocational Instructor have been
prescribed) have not been brought to the notice of these Co-ordinate Benches.
26.The learned Government Advocate has also contended that the writ
Court had relied upon a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.1494 of 2017
dated 01.03.2018 to allow the writ petition. However, the same was reversed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.12310 of 2024 dated
12.11.2024. Hence, he contended that the order of the writ Court is also liable
to be set aside. In the said case, permission was granted to the incumbent
Vocational Instructor only as a one off case by taking a sympathetic view so
as to facilitate the earlier incumbents to complete their tenure,
notwithstanding, the fact that the said posts have not been sanctioned.
However, in the present case, while granting approval to Ms.S.Anie
Catherine, no such condition was imposed that it would be a one off case.
That apart, the post of Vocational Instructor (Accountancy and Auditing)
continues to be a sanctioned post and gets reflected in the staff fixation order
up to the academic year 2024-2025. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 04:40:19 pm )
(D).Conclusion:
27.In view of the above said deliberations, we do not find any merit in
the writ appeal and the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(C.V.K.J.,) (R.V.J.,)
24.09.2025.
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 04:40:19 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
msa
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
and
CMP(MD).Nos.3584 and 4042 of 2020
24.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 04:40:19 pm )
