Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20885
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
P.Cathrine Julie – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India – Respondent
WMP.No.7897 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.Ajayakumar
For the Respondents: Mr.Syed Mustafa, SGP (P) for R1 & R2
The court establishes the responsibility of administrative authorities to consider appointment proposals under the Grant in Aid Scheme timely.
Headnote:{'statute_analysis': 'Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus.', 'facts': 'The petitioner joined the service of the third respondent’s school on 12.05.2014 against a sanctioned post and was issued an appointment order on 13.06.2014. Despite several reminders, the salary was not released.', 'findings_of_court': 'The second respondent is directed to consider the proposal sent by the second respondent dated 13.06.2014 and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks.', 'issues': "Whether the second respondent will approve the petitioner's appointment and salary payment.", 'ratio_decidendi': 'The second respondent is required to consider the proposal and take necessary action based on the law.', 'result': 'The Writ Petition is disposed of.'}
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employment appointment facts and salary not released (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. court considerations and directions for approval (Para 2 , 5) |
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Trained Graduate Teacher since the petitioner is appointed against an already sanctioned post coming under the Grant in Aid Scheme and to pay the salary of the petitioner with effect from 13.6.2014 onwards with arrears.
2. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side. With the consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself. Since no adverse order is passed as against the third respondent, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she joined the service of the third respondent’s school on 12.05.20214 which is a sanctioned post that arose vacant due to the resignation of one Ms.Antony Grace Mary and was issued with an appointment order on 13.06.2014. The school has sent proposal to the Education Department intimating her appointment on 13.06.2014 and to release her salary and thereafter several reminders in regard to the same was sent but there was no response. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a petition in W.P.No.48282 of 2025 but however, the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh case. Since the proposal of the third respondent was not considered till date by the second respondent, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice to issue a direction to the second respondent to consider the proposal of the third respondent dated 13.06.2014, including the letter intimating the petitioner’s educational qualification sent to the educational department dated 23.01.2016 and to pass appropriate orders, within a reasonable time.
5. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the proposal sent by the third respondent School will be considered by the second respondent in accordance with law and appropriate orders will be passed. 6. In view of the submissions made by the respective learned counsels, the second respondent is directed to consider the proposal sent by the second respondent dated 13.06.2014, including the intimation letter in regard to the educational qualification of the petitioner dated 23.01.2016 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
