IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

and W.M.P.No.32016 of 2025

S.Mani ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Director of Elementary Education,

College Road,

Chennai – 600 006.

2. The District Educational Officer (Elementary)

Vriddhachalam,

Cuddalore District.

3. The Block Educational Officer,

Nallur, Cuddalore District.

4. The Correspondent,

D.M. Elementary School,

Kattumailur – 606 304,

Cuddalore District.

5. The Central Manager, Arcot Lutheran Church,

D.M. Elementary & Higher

Elementary School, ALC Central Office,

No.9, A.L.C. Campus,

Cuddalore – 607 001. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the second respondent made in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.143/A3/2024, dated 27.05.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the fourth respondent school from the date of his appointment ie., 16.11.2016 with all consequential service and monetary benefits including arrears of salary.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Kaizer For Respondents For R1 to R3 : Mrs.S.Muthreye Chandru Special Government Pleader For R4 : No appearance For R5 : Mr.M.S.Seshadri

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated

27.05.2025 passed by the second respondent, thereby rejecting the proposal submitted by the fourth respondent seeking approval of the petitioner’s appointment in the post of secondary grade Assistant Teacher in the fourth respondent school from 16.11.2016.

2. The petitioner was appointed as secondary grade Assistant Teacher in the fourth respondent school in the sanctioned permanent vacancy. The said vacancy was arose due to promotion and transfer of one K.Elizabeth Reeta Jothibai, as secondary grade Assistant Teacher. Immediately, the fourth respondent submitted proposal for approval of the petitioner’s appointment. However, it was rejected on the ground that there was surplus post in the secondary grade Assistant Teacher. It was challenged in a Writ Petition in W.P.No.22735 of 2019 and this Court set aside the order of rejection and remitted back the matter for fresh consideration. However on two times, the proposal was rejected for some other reasons. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court and on all three occasions, the order of rejected was set aside and remitted back for fresh consideration, by this Court. This time also the proposal was rejected on the ground that the petition was not qualified with Teachers Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as “TET”) and also there was surplus. Accordingly, by the impugned order, the respondents added one more ground to reject the appointment of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the year 2016-2017, the fourth respondent school was having the student strength of 97 and there were four sanctioned posts including one Head Master and three secondary grade Teacher. In the said posts, there was one vacancy and in the said vacancy, the petitioner was appointed as secondary grade teacher. Insofar as the eligibility of TET is concerned, the fourth respondent school is being a minority school, the qualification of TET does not require.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that 18 surplus posts are there in the fourth respondent school and as such the appointment of the petitioner cannot be considered for approval.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the sanctioned vacancy due to the promotion and transfer of one Elizabeth Reeta Jothibai as secondary grade Assistant Teacher. Therefore, there is no surplus at the time of his appointment. Though the respondents, on second and third occasions, had rejected th