The main legal point established in the judgment is that the surplus teacher cannot be a ground for denying approval of appointment, and the relevant legal provisions and previous judgments should be considered in such matters.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for willfully disobeying and not complying with the order of this Court, dated 31.07.2018, in W.P.(MD)No.16913 of 2018.)

1. This Contempt Petition is filed alleging willful obedience of the order of this Court, dated 31.07.2018, in W.P.(MD)No.16913 of 2018.

2. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.16913 of 2018 was filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order of the District Educational Officer, dated 05.01.2018 and to direct the second and third respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in 5th respondent School, namely St. Antony's Primary School, Vadakankulam, with effect from the date of appointment, i.e., 21.11.2016 and disburse the grant in aid and other attendant benefits.

3. This Court in W.P.(MD)No.16913 of 2018, vide order, dated 31.07.2018, has held as under:

“6. I have heard D.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, who would fairly submit that, in similar circumstances, this Court already passed some orders, where, it was directed that each school shall be considered as a unit for the purpose of staff fixation and if at all any excess teaching staff available in any of the school, run by the same management, that should be found out and steps should be taken to redeploy all those teachers at the needed school and the job is vest only with the official concerned of the Education Department and therefore for that reason, the management of that school cannot be blamed.

7. I have heard the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government pleader for the respondents and perused the impugned order and other connected materials filed before this Court.

8. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and endorsed by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the reasons cited in the impugned order cannot be sustained. The reason being that, each school would get recognition from the Educational Officer, on the basis of the infrastructure and based on the pupil strength in each school, teaching staff and non teaching staff is fixed for every academic year and only on the basis of the staff sanctioned, aid would be given to the school concern. Therefore, if at all any excess teaching staff is available in any particular school, where the school management wants to make further appointment, that can be curtailed by directing them to redeploy the said teacher.

9. However, if a school is not having any excess teacher, in the school run by the same management, that cannot be shown as a reason for rejecting the proposal of appointment, sent by the school concerned. The said issue has already been discussed and decided in number of cases. Therefore, the said reasoning can no longer be a good reason for rejecting the proposal of appointment, which was made in a sanctioned vacancy of the fifth respondent school. Therefore, the impugned order, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be sustained, therefore, liable to be quashed.

“In the result, the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration. The fifth respondent school is directed to resubmit the proposal to the second respondent through the fourth and third respondents, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such resubmitted proposal from the fifth respondent, the second respondent shall consider the said resubmitted proposal and pass orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law and if the petitioner's appointment is otherwise in order, necessary orders for approval of such appointment can also be passed by the second respondent and the needful shall be done, within a period of four weeks from the date of recei