The impugned order rejecting the appointment was not sustainable as it was solely based on G.O.Ms.No.165 without considering other relevant factors.

JUDGMENT :

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 26.02.2020 made in W.P.No.3189 of 2020 on the file of this Court.)

This writ appeal is filed by the State against the order dated 26.02.2020 in W.P.No.3189 of 2020. The said writ petition was filed challenging the refusal of approval for the appointment of a secondary grade teacher in the writ petitioner-s school. The said impugned order was passed entirely on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.165, School Education (E.Edu.2(1)) Department. The said G.O., in turn, was passed based on an interim direction issued on 09.04.2019 by a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in a batch of cases bearing W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019 (batch).

2. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the writ appeals before the Madurai Bench are still pending adjudication and that, therefore, the impugned order is sustainable.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioner contends that the State did not reject the request for approval by citing the availability of surplus posts or by providing any other reason. Such rejection was entirely based on G.O.Ms.No.165. He further pointed out that by an interim order dated 20.09.2019 in W.A. (MD) No.76 of 2019, (batch), the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court stayed the operation of G.O.Ms.No.165. As such, he submits that the order dated 09.01.2020 cannot be sustained.

4. Upon considering the rival contentions and on examining the order of the Writ Court, we find that the Writ Court has taken note of the fact that the impugned order merely quotes G.O.Ms.No.165. Significantly, the impugned order does not advert to the availability of surplus posts or cite any other reason for rejecting the application for approval. In the light of the aforesaid, it is clear that the impugned order is not sustainable. We also note that the Writ Court quashed such impugned order and directed the petitioner-school to re-submit the proposal to the fourth respondent. We are informed that such proposal has been re-submitted to the fourth respondent. Therefore, it is open to the official respondents to take all material aspects into account while deciding on the application for approval. Consequently, we find that the order of the Writ Court does not warrant interference inasmuch as it has taken note of all relevant considerations before arriving at the conclusion, albeit subject to the modification that the decision on the re-submitted proposal should be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ Appeal, W.A.No.1090 of 2020, is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.13265 of 2020 is closed.