IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and W.M.P.Nos.23670 of 2017 & 38206 of 2025 Mr.P.Aldrin Selvapandiayan S/o.Pandiyarajan, No.2, Palani Murugan Nagar, Boothamoor, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District 606 001.

..Petitioner Vs

1. The Government of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

2. The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-6.

3. The chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

4. The District Educational Officer, Viruddhachalam 606 001.

5. The Correspondent Danish Mission Hr.Sec. School, Pudukuppam, Virdhachalam 606 001.

..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.3812/A3/2016-4 dated 8.2.2017, quash the same to the limited extent of declaring one post of B.T. Assistant as surplus, consequently direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner and to extend all benefits both service and monetary thereto.

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Amardeep for Mr.V.Antony Elangovan Raj For Respondents: Mrs.P.Raja Rajeswari Government Advocate, for R1 to R4 Ms.G.Saranya, for R5

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the order dated 08.02.2017 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.3812/A3/2016-4 passed by the fourth respondent. By the said order, the post of B.T. Assistant (English), to which the petitioner was appointed, was declared surplus for the academic year 2016–2017.

2. The petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant (English) on 16.11.2016 in the fifth respondent school. The fifth respondent thereafter forwarded a proposal seeking approval of the petitioner’s appointment. Upon receipt of the said proposal, the fourth respondent passed the impugned order.

3. Mr. R. Amardeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as on the date of appointment, the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned vacant post and that the said post was not treated as surplus at that point of time. It was further contended that even assuming that the post was subsequently declared surplus, the respondents were bound to approve the appointment and thereafter redeploy the petitioner to a needy school, in accordance with law.

4. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Division Benches of this Court in (i) W.A. No.253 of 2025 [The Correspondent, Danish Mission Primary School v. The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai and others] and (ii) W.A.(MD) No.2134 of 2024 [The State of Tamil Nadu and others v.

The Correspondent, St. Joseph’s Convent Higher Secondary School]

5. Per contra, the learned State Counsel submitted that as on 01.08.2016, based on the student strength, only one post of B.T. Assistant (English) was sanctioned and that the remaining post was treated as surplus by the impugned order. Therefore, according to the learned State Counsel, the petitioner having been appointed against a surplus post is not entitled to approval of his appointment, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and the materials placed on record have been duly considered.

7. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, particularly in paragraph No.4, it is stated that the post of B.T. Assistant (English) became vacant on 31.05.2016 due to the retirement of the erstwhile incumbent and that the petitioner was appointed to the said post on 16.11.2016. It is also admitted that the petitioner has continued to work till the date of filing of the counter affidavit. However, the fourth respondent passed the impugned order dated 08.02.2017 stating that, on account of the reduced student strength, the post in which the petitioner was appointed was treated as surplus and consequen