Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2296
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
M. Uma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary - Respondent
W.P.(MD)Nos.8689 and 10118 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6502, 6504, 7537 and 7538 of 2025 W.P(MD)No.8689 of 2025:
Decided on : 24-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For the Respondent:Mr.T.Amjad Khan Government Advocate
The rejection of the appointment of a B.T.Assistant was deemed arbitrary, and prior appointments must be approved despite subsequent government orders.
Headnote:
(A) Writ Petition - Appointment of B.T.Assistant - Rejection of appointment on grounds of surplus teachers - The court found the rejection arbitrary and contrary to settled law, referencing prior judgments that support the approval of appointments made before certain government orders. (Paras 3-6)
(B) Government Orders - The court noted that G.O.Ms.No.165 was declared inoperative, allowing for the approval of appointments made prior to its issuance. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as B.T.Assistant (Maths) on 24.02.2017, but the approval for her appointment was rejected due to the availability of surplus teachers.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to approve the appointment and disburse salary within four weeks.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the rejection of the appointment and the applicability of government orders regarding teacher appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the rejection was arbitrary and that prior appointments should be honored despite subsequent government orders.
Result: Writ petitions allowed.
COMMON ORDER
W.P(MD)No.8689 of 2025 filed against the order of the fourth respondent, dated 19.03.2025, wherein, the appointment of the petitioner as B.T.Assistant (Maths) in the sixth respondent School with effect from 27.02.2017 has been rejected.
2. Against the same order, W.P(MD)No.10118 of 2025 is filed by the School.
3. The facts of the cases are herein under and the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P(MD)No.8689 of 2025:
In the sixth respondent school, one post of B.T.Assistant (Maths) fell vacant on 06.07.2013 due to the transfer of then incumbent Tmt.S.Kavitha on 05.07.2013. The school appointed the petitioner as B.T.Assistant (Maths) on 24.02.2017 and the petitioner joined her duty in the School on 27.02.2017. Thereafter, the school sent proposal to the fourth respondent on 06.06.2017 for approval of appointment of the petitioner with effect from 27.02.2017 and to disburse grant in aid towards her salary. Vide impugned order, the said proposal was rejected on the ground that in the same corporate management, the surplus teachers are available and as such, the appointment of the petitioner is not possible. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in both writ petitions submits that the order of rejection is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and contrary to the settled law.
5. In respect of applicability of the cut off date for appointment, it is relevant to rely on the judgment of this Court held in W.P.(MD)No.7479 of 2024 dated 17.04.2024 , wherein in paragraph Nos.4, 5 & 6 it is held as follows:
"4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner attracted the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).No.2119 of 2021 dated 23.06.2023 in the case of The Commissioner of School Education, Vs Aided Muslim Committee Primary School, Rep. by its Correspondent, S.Sheik Shajakhan Sithik, wherein it is held as under:
“8.Moreover, the said G.O., was issued only on 17.09.2019, whereas the teacher was appointed well before the issuance of the said G.O., ie., 03.07.2018. Therefore, assuming if the said G.O., ultimately would be declared to be valid, that will have a prospective effect. Moreover, as on today, the said G.O., is no more available to the appellant department to say the reason that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.165, the appointment made in respect of the teacher concerned at the 1st respondent school cannot be approved. 9. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly valid and therefore, it is to be sustained. In the result, this Writ Appeal fails, therefore, it is to be dismissed, accordingly, it is dismissed. As a sequel, there shall be a direction to the appellant Department to approve the appointment of the teacher concerned in the 1st respondent School and extend all service benefits from the date of such appointment to the teacher concerned within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.09.2019 has been kept inoperative in W.A.(MD).No.76 of 2019 batch dated 31.03.2021 in the case of The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9 vs Iruthaya Amali and the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
“95. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are inclined to pass the following orders in this batch of cases : ....
(o) In view of the aforesaid, the G.O.Ms.No. 165, School Education [Tho.Ka.2(1)] Department, dated 17.09.2019 is hereby declared to be inoperative.”
6. The petitioner's appointment has been made prior to the order dated 31.03.2021 passed in W.A.(MD).No.76 of 2019 batch. Hence, the petitioner School can get the advantage of getting approval o
