IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN A.Charlet Grace Rebecca ... Petitioner -Vs-

1. The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai- 600 006. 2. The Chief Educational Officer, Presidency Girls Higher Secondary School Campus, Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.

3. The District Educational Officer, Chennai North Educational District, Villivakkam, Chennai-600 045.

4. The Correspondent, Park Town Mission High School, Chennai- 600 003. ...Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.5928/A4/2024 dated 14.08.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to grant approval to the Petitioner to the Post of B.T.Assistant (Mathematics) in the 4th Respondent school while taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was appointed on 14.11.2016 and jointed the Post with effect from 16.11.2016 when the post of B.T.Assistant (Mathematics) was within the sanctioned strength with all consequential monetary and service benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran for Mr.C.Mahendran For R1 to R3 : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.D.Maharaja

O RDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.08.2024, passed by the third respondent, thereby rejecting the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner to the post of B.T.Assistant (Mathematics) in the

4th Respondent school from the date of her appointment dated 16.11.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner had qualified with B.Sc (Mathematics) and B.Ed and eligible to be appointed as B.T.Assistant. While being so, the fourth respondent, which is an aided Religious Minority Institution selected the petitioner and appointed her to the post of B.T.Assistant (Mathematics) in the sanctioned post in the vacancy arose due to the retirement of an incumbent one A.Lakshmi on Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 31.10.2016. Subsequently, the fourth respondent submitted a proposal for the petitioner’s appointment. However, it was rejected, on the ground that the post of B.T.Assistant (Mathematics) was surplus during the academic year 2016 to 2017 and further, stating that the petitioner had failed to qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

1 to 3 submitted that there was surplus in the post of B.T.Assistant during the academic year 2016 to 2017. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be approved, since she was appointed in the surplus post.

5. A perusal of records reveals that there was two B.T.Assistants, in which one was surplus. However, there is no evidence to show that the post of B.T Assistant in Mathematics was surplus during year 2016 to 2017.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there was surplus in the post of B.T.Assistant (Social Science). The petitioner was posted as B.T.Assistant (Mathematics). Without a Mathematics Teacher, the School cannot run and as such, there was no surplus in the post of B.T.Assistant (Mathematics). He further submitted that the impugned order was also rejected by stating that the petitioner had failed to qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test.

7. Both issues have now been settled by this Court in W.P.No.32316 of

2023 dated 01.03.2024, wherein this Court held as follows:-

“ 7. On perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.09.2019 it is perspective in nature and as such those who were prior to the said Government order is not applicable. That apart, the same was declared by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court at Madurai Bench of this Court would inoperative. This Court held in W.P.No.17909 of 2023 etc., cases by an order dated 15.09.2023 as follows:

''6. It is relevant to note that while setting aside th