BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN W.A.(MD) No.135 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD) No.890 of 2025

1.The Secretary to Government Education Department State of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Chennai-9

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

3.The Chief Educational Officer Tenkasi District, Tenkasi

4.The District Educational Officer Tenkasi District, Tenkasi ... Appellants -vs-

1.Sivanarayanaperumal

2.The Correspondent Seeniyammal High School Sinthamani, Puliyangudi Tenkasi District ... Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 19.07.2024, passed in W.P.(MD) No.15072 of 2024, on the file of this Court.

For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.S.Chellapandian for R1

J U D G M E N T

[Judgment of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

The second respondent – School sought for approval from the appellants for the appointment of the first respondent to the post of Office Assistant in their School, vide their representation dated 05.12.2023 and the said request was rejected by the District Educational Officer vide proceedings dated 10.05.2024 citing the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.238, School Education Department, dated 13.11.2018, which mandates that any vacancy in the Aided School must be filled up from the surplus in the same post available in the other schools and only after exhausting the surplus, fresh appointment can be made. However, the said Government Order has been stayed by this Court in W.A.(MD) No.816 of 2023 and the said writ appeal is pending disposal before this Court. In the said circumstances, the refusal to grant permission for the appointment of the first respondent to the post of Office Assistant was challenged by the first respondent by filing the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.15072 of 2024, in which the learned Single Judge has passed the following order on 19.07.2024:

“4. In the impugned order, it is stated that after filling up the surplus posts in minority schools in the revenue District, fresh appointment can be made in the 5th respondent school and only for such a proposal the respondent can give approval. So far as the 5th respondent school is concerned it is an aided minority school. So, the question of filling up the vacancy by deploying in minority schools in the revenue district will not arise in view of the special status of minority schools and the autonomy assured to them under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The other reference that is seen in the impugned order is about the G.O.Ms.No.238 School Education Department dated 13.11.2018. Even the above Government Order speaks about the surplus posts of the District Level and the petitioner's school which is a minority institution cannot be expected to accommodate the surplus posts even in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.238 School Education Department dated 13.11.2018.

5. Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that legality of G.O.238 School Education Department dated 13.11.2018 has been upheld by this Court in W.P(MD)No.13428 of 2020. In the said order, the applicability of the above said Government Order relating to the minority institutions have also been dealt and is held as under:

"9.Article 30 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to establish and administer educational institutions by minorities. The impugned G.O does not in any way constitute an inroad into that right. The management can very well appoint as many persons as they want. All that the G.O states is that the government will not be in a position to fund such appointments beyond what has been already provided. In Chandana Das v. State of W.B (2015) 12 SCC 140, it was noted that grant-in-aid is not included in the guarantee contained in the Constitution to linguistic and religious minorities for establishing and runn