[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Mr.P.Aldrin Selvapandiayan vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 20 January, 2026
WP No. 22541 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20-01-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WP No. 22541 of 2017
and
W.M.P.Nos.23670 of 2017 & 38206 of 2025
Mr.P.Aldrin Selvapandiayan
S/o.Pandiyarajan,
No.2, Palani Murugan Nagar,
Boothamoor, Vridhachalam,
Cuddalore District 606 001.
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Government of Tamilnadu
rep. by its Secretary, Department of School
Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Director of School Education, DPI
Campus, College Road, Chennai-6.
3. The chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
4. The District Educational Officer,
Viruddhachalam 606 001.
5. The Correspondent Danish Mission Hr.Sec.
School, Pudukuppam, Virdhachalam 606 001.
..Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned order of 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.3812/A3/2016-4 dated 8.2.2017,
quash the same to the limited extent of declaring one post of B.T. Assistant as
surplus, consequently direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 01:45:01 pm )
WP No. 22541 of 2017
petitioner and to extend all benefits both service and monetary thereto.
For Petitioners: Mr.R.Amardeep
for Mr.V.Antony Elangovan Raj
For Respondents: Mrs.P.Raja Rajeswari
Government Advocate, for R1 to R4
Ms.G.Saranya, for R5
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the order dated 08.02.2017 bearing reference
Na.Ka.No.3812/A3/2016-4 passed by the fourth respondent. By the said order,
the post of B.T. Assistant (English), to which the petitioner was appointed, was
declared surplus for the academic year 2016–2017.
2. The petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant (English) on 16.11.2016
in the fifth respondent school. The fifth respondent thereafter forwarded a
proposal seeking approval of the petitioner’s appointment. Upon receipt of the
said proposal, the fourth respondent passed the impugned order.
3. Mr. R. Amardeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
submitted that as on the date of appointment, the petitioner was appointed
against a sanctioned vacant post and that the said post was not treated as surplus
at that point of time. It was further contended that even assuming that the post
was subsequently declared surplus, the respondents were bound to approve the
appointment and thereafter redeploy the petitioner to a needy school, in
accordance with law.
4. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on
the decisions of the Hon’ble Division Benches of this Court in (i) W.A. No.253
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 01:45:01 pm )
of 2025 [The Correspondent, Danish Mission Primary School v. The Director
of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai and others]
and (ii) W.A.(MD) No.2134 of 2024 [The State of Tamil Nadu and others v.
The Correspondent, St. Joseph’s Convent Higher Secondary School].
5. Per contra, the learned State Counsel submitted that as on 01.08.2016,
based on the student strength, only one post of B.T. Assistant (English) was
sanctioned and that the remaining post was treated as surplus by the impugned
order. Therefore, according to the learned State Counsel, the petitioner having
been appointed against a surplus post is not entitled to approval of his
appointment, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either
side and the materials placed on record have been duly considered.
7. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, particularly in
paragraph No.4, it is stated that the post of B.T. Assistant (English) became
vacant on 31.05.2016 due to the retirement of the erstwhile incumbent and that
the petitioner was appointed to the said post on 16.11.2016. It is also admitted
that the petitioner has continued to work till the date of filing of the counter
affidavit. However, the fourth respondent passed the impugned order dated
08.02.2017 stating that, on account of the reduced student strength, the post in
which the petitioner was appointed was treated as surplus and consequently, the
proposal sent by the fifth respondent seeking approval of the petitioner’s
appointment was rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 01:45:01 pm )
8. In a similar factual situation, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court
in W.A. No.253 of 2025, following the judgments in Secretary to Government
of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai–9 v.
Iruthaya Amali and Commissioner of School Education v. Aided Muslim
Committee Primary School, rep. by its Correspondent, S. Sheik Shajakhan
Sithik, has held that all appointments made prior to the date on which the post
was declared surplus are liable to be approved and that, upon such approval, the
Department is bound to take steps for redeployment of teachers to needy
schools. It was further held that G.O. Ms. No.165, which prohibited approval of
appointments in cases of surplus posts, had been rendered inoperative by this
Court.
9. The Hon’ble Division Bench, while taking note of the decision in
Iruthaya Amali, further held that denial of approval on the ground of surplus
teachers in a corporate management or in a stand-alone institution is permissible
only on and from 31.03.2021, being the date of the judgment in the said case. In
the present case, the petitioner was appointed prior to 31.03.2021 and is
therefore entitled to the benefit of parity.
10. In the light of the above discussion, the petitioner is entitled to
approval of his appointment as B.T. Assistant (English) in the fifth respondent
school.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
08.02.2017 is quashed insofar as it treats the post of B.T. Assistant (English) as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 01:45:01 pm )
surplus. The fourth respondent is directed to reconsider the proposal forwarded
by the fifth respondent and approve the appointment of the petitioner, subject to
the petitioner satisfying all eligibility criteria.
12. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the fourth
respondent is at liberty to redeploy the petitioner to a needy school, in
accordance with law.
13. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
20-01-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
mk
1. The Government of Tamilnadu rep. by its
Secretary, Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Director of School Education, DPI
Campus, College Road, Chennai-6.
3. The chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
4. The District Educational Officer,
Viruddhachalam 606 001.
5. The Correspondent Danish Mission Hr.Sec.
School, Pudukuppam, Virdhachalam 606 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 01:45:01 pm )
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
mk
20-01-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 01:45:01 pm )
