ORDER :

P.T.ASHA, J.

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“To call for the records relating to the proceedings issued by the 3^rd respondent by Na.Ka.No.6853/A2/2022 dated 23.03.2023 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of B.T. Assistant (History) in the 4^th respondent school from the date of appointment on 01.03.2016 with all consequential and attendant benefits.”

2. The petitioner was appointed as a B.T. Assistant (History) in the 4^th respondent School by orders of the 4^th respondent dated 01.03.2016. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the service in the post of the B.T. Assistant (History). Thereafter, the 4^th respondent school submitted a proposal on 27.06.2018, to the 3^rd respondent for approval of his appointment. However, the same was rejected stating that the litigation was pending. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent passed an impugned order dated 23.03.2023 stating that the documents required were not sent to the concerned authorities in time and post is surplus post.

3. Challenging the rejection of approval for sanctioned post in the 4^th respondent School, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. This Court in a similar case in WA.(MD).No.1716 of 2024 dated 26.09.2024, had observed as follows:

2.The order in the writ petition which is the subject matter of the appeal arose under the following circumstances: The petitioner which is an aided minority institution is under a corporate management. A vacancy arose in one of the schools due to the retirement of one M.G.Mary Isabell who was a B.T. Assistant (History) and the post was upgraded automatically as B.T.Assistant in terms of G.O.Ms.No.79, School Education Department, dated 14.06.2022. In the upgraded vacancy, the corporate management transferred one Sr.Roselet Mary as a B.T.Assistant in English, by its order dated 01.06.2017 and she joined the school on 08.06.2017. When approval was sought for the said appointment that came to be rejected on the ground that there was a surplus teacher in the school from the years 2017-2018 to 2019-2020. This order was passed on 02.07.2020, despite the fact that this Court had as early as on 21.03.2012 by its pronouncement made in S.Rasheetha Banu vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Chennai and others held that the question of surplus will have to be taken on the date of appointment and not thereafter. It was also held that if the appointment is to a sanctioned post the fact that it becomes a surplus in view of subsequent reduction in student strength cannot be a ground for rejecting approval. In fact that the judgment in S.Rasheetha Banu vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Chennai and others followed the pronouncement of Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD)No.703 of 2019. It is not in dispute that the judgment in S.Rasheetha Banu was not appealed against and it has become final. The appointment of Sr.Roselet Mary was on 08.06.2017. Therefore, it is within the period 2016-2017 for the purposes of staff fixation. The fact that at the staff fixation done during the month of August 2017 (2017-18), the student strength came down rendering one post as surplus cannot be a ground for rejecting approval. Therefore the only ground for rejection of approval made out in the order impugned in the writ petition does not survive.

3. Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader would however contend that the modus adopted by corporate management in transferring a teacher and creating vacancy in another school is deplorable. There are several deplorable practices adopted both by the private managements as well as the Education Department and this Court has no power to control or curb the same. It is for the State Government to step in legislatively in order to curb such deplorable practices.

We have to go by a law declared by this Court

5. In the said Judgement, it is held that if a person