The central legal point established in the judgment is that appointments made by the School Management prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 and proposals forwarded to the educational authorities prior to the issuance of the G.O. are entitled to approval, and the respondents cannot reject such appointments citing G.O.Ms.No.165.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd Respondent made in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 8448/ Aa2/ 2019 dated 08.12.2019 and quash the same and direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the 4th Respondent School from the date of her appointment and consequently direct the Respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner with arrears of salary.)

The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records relating to the order of the 2nd Respondent made in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 8448/ Aa2/ 2019 dated 08.12.2019 and quash the same and direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the 4th Respondent School from the date of her appointment and consequently direct the Respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner with arrears of salary.

2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the writ petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent School on 18.01.2019. The fourth respondent submitted a proposal to the second respondent on 21.01.2019 for approval of the appointment made by the fourth respondent School. The petitioner has made representation to the 2nd respondent for approval of her appointment and also for the payment of salary. Since no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No. 28275 of 2018 before this Court. By order dated 14.08.2019, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 14.08.2019 submitted by the petitioner and dispose of the same within 12 weeks. The 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 08.12.2019, rejected the proposal for the approval of the appointment of the petitioner on the ground of surplus teachers.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the said proposal was forwarded to the 4th respondent/Management prior to G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019, therefore the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits as claimed by her.

5. The relief sought for in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 18.4.2022 in W.P.No.3194 of 2020, etc. Batch case [B.Kurinjimalaron vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai~9] wherein this Court held as follows:

“9. On perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Batch of cases and also the G.O.Ms.No.165 issued by the School Education Department, dated 17.9.2019, both the judgment as well as G.O.Ms.No.165 are prospective in nature. The appointments made by the School Management in the instant writ petitions are prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 and proposals for the said appointments were also forwarded to the educational authorities prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019. Therefore, there is no legal impediments for the respondents to accord approval to the appointment made by the School Management in the instant writ petitions.

10. Having regard to the rival submissions of the parties, taking note of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a Batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD) No.76 of 2019, etc., G.O.Ms.No.165 issued by the School Education department, dated 17.9.2019 will not prohibit the educational authorities to approve the appointments made by the School Management in the instant writ petitions since the proposals for approval of appointments made by the School Management were forwarded to the educational authorities prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent department without considering the G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.9.2019 in proper perspective