Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2803
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Battu Devanand, J.
S.Emile - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education and ors. - Respondents
W.P.(MD).No.29880 of 2024
Decided On : 01-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar
For the Respondent:Mr.T.Amjad Khan Government Advocate
Approval for appointment cannot be denied based on surplus teachers or lack of eligibility tests when a sanctioned vacancy exists, as established by prior judicial decisions.
Headnote:(A) Writ Petition - Certiorarified Mandamus - Authority of educational appointing officers - This writ petition seeks to quash proceedings of Chief Educational Officer and approve the appointment of petitioner as BT Assistant (Science) effective 03.06.2019, despite surplus staff claims and Teacher Eligibility Test issues. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Approvals and Sanction of Appointments - Surplus staff cannot impede the approval of a sanctioned post; decisions must follow significant judicial precedents. This highlights the importance of timing and relevance of Government Orders in appointment validations. (Paras 6-8)
(C) Prior approvals and orders maintain effect; respondents may not deny approvals based on outdated or inoperative directives. (Paras 7-8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner was appointed as BT Assistant (Science) on 03.06.2019 following a vacancy due to retirement, yet faced approval rejection based on available surplus posts and Teacher Eligibility Test status.
Findings of Court:
The approval denial was found unsubstantiated regarding the sanctioned vacancy and is inconsistent with court directives on appointments.
Issues: The court examined the adequacy of reasons for denial based on surplus teachers and Teacher Eligibility Test credentials.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that reliance on surplus availability to refuse approval is unjustified, aligning with judicial precedents which affirm teachers' entitlements in approved appointments, irrespective of surplus staffing.
Result: Writ petition allowed; the impugned order is set aside. Respondents directed to grant approval of appointment within eight weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. approval of appointment amid surplus teachers issue. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. applicability of previous judgments on appointment approvals. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. writ petition allowed; approval mandated. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
Battu Devanand, J.
Heard Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.Amjad Khan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. Carefully perused the materials available on records.
2. This writ petition has been filed for a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned proceedings passed by the 3rd respondent / Chief Educational Officer dated 27.06.2024 in Na.Ka.No.803/A4/2023 and further direct the 3rd respondent Chief Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner as BT Assistant (Science) in the fifth respondent school w.e.f. 03.06.2019 with salary, allowances and all attendant benefits including arrears of salary.
3. The fifth School has appointed the petitioner as BT Assistant (Science) on 03.06.2019 due to the retirement of the then incumbent Mrs.J.Margaret on 31.05.2019. The fifth respondent submitted a proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner on 25.06.2019 and the same was returned by the 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 05.06.2020, stating that the school shall resubmit the proposal after obtaining No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the 3rd respondent / Chief Educational Officer. Thereafter, again the school resubmitted the proposal before the 4th respondent / District Educational Officer stating that the surplus posts in the other schools will in no way an impediment in approving the appointment made against the sanctioned posts, however the same was returned, and reiterated the same reasons.
4. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.29388 of 2023, seeking approval of appointment of the petitioner as BT Assistant (Science) with effect from 03.06.2019. This Court vide order dated 13.12.2023, allowed the writ petition and the set aside impugned order therein and the matter was remitted back to the file of the fourth respondent therein and the fourth respondent is directed to verify whether there is any surplus B.T. Assistant (Science) teacher within the Corporate Management for the academic year 2019-2020. In case, if there is no surplus B.T. Assistant (Science) Teacher, he shall proceed to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 03.06.2019. However, the 4th respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.803/A4/2023 dated 29.06.2024 declined to approve the appointment of the petitioner stating that as surplus post available in the corporate management and also the petitioner did not pass the Teacher Eligibility Test. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition.
5. The reason for rejecting the approval is concerned, it is about the availability of surplus teachers working in the other schools under the same management. The fifth respondent has appointed the petitioner as BT Assistant (Science) with effect from 03.06.2019. According to the petitioner, the surplus teachers working in the other schools coming under the same management will no way impediment in approving the appointment made against the sanctioned posts. Hence, the fifth respondent school has appointed the petitioner as BT Assistant (Science) on which date the BT Assistant (Science) post was very much a sanctioned vacancy. Hence, the reason for rejection of the approval of appointment made by the petitioner School on the ground that the school ought to have filled the sanctioned post with the surplus teachers is also not valid.
6. 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
