The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to prior court directives in appointment approvals, particularly considering the timing of the petitioner's appointment relative to the surplus teacher situation.

ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent District Educational Officer in Mu. Mu. No. 5495/Aa2/2016 dated 31.07.2017, quash the same and further direct the third respondent District Educational Officer to approve forthwith the appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (History) in the fifth respondent school namely Union Christian Higher Secondary School (TELC), Madurai w.e.f. the date of her appointment viz. 22.08.2013 and disburse the staff grant towards her salary from the said date with all attendant benefits.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 31.07.2017, rejecting the proposal submitted by the fifth respondent school seeking for approval for the appointment of the petitioner in the fifth respondent school as B.T. Assistant [History] with effect from the date of her appointment namely 22.08.2013, on the ground that there are surplus teachers in the fifth respondent school.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the third respondent has not complied with the directions of the Division Bench of this Court dated 15.06.2017 passed in W.A. (MD) No. 719 of 2017. In the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench which has also been enclosed along with this writ petition, it has been made clear that the third respondent who has passed the impugned order will have to consider the staff fixation order placed by the Headmaster of the fifth respondent school and thereafter pass appropriate orders with regard to the request of the fifth respondent school seeking for approval of the appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant [History] in the fifth respondent school within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of the staff fixation order pertaining to the fifth respondent school from the Headmaster.

3. In the aforesaid Writ Appeal, the proposal submitted by the fifth respondent school seeking approval for the appointment of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not possessing TET pass. The Division Bench of this Court has upheld the order of the learned Single Judge by disposing of the Writ Appeal and by directing the third respondent to consider afresh based on the staff fixation order placed by the school Headmaster.

4. The petitioner contends that when the earlier impugned order was passed and was quashed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, there was no surplus teachers in the fifth respondent school. Therefore, his contention is that in the later years, if there are surplus teachers in the fifth respondent school, the same cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner who was appointed much prior to the date when the fifth respondent school was having surplus teachers.

5. The contentions as raised in this Writ Petition having not been considered in the impugned order, only on the ground that the fifth respondent school is presently having surplus teachers, the proposal submitted by the fifth respondent school seeking for approving the appointment of the petitioner has been rejected. Since the petitioner claims that he was appointed by the fifth respondent school much prior to the date when the teachers in the fifth respondent school became surplus, necessarily, the said contention has to be considered afresh by the third respondent as it may deserve some merit. Since the same has not been considered under the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the third respondent has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due consideration to the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition as stated supra.

6. In th