IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 12.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA W.P.No. 38959 of 2024 &

W.M.P.No. 42194 of 2024 T.Maryprasanna ...Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

3.The District Educational Officer Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

4.The Correspondent, Danish Mission Higher Secondary School, Tiruvannamalai District. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings issued by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents in Na.Ka.No.1457/Aa6/2024 dated 12.07.2024 and Na.Ka.No.774/Aa2/2021 dated 21.10.2024 respectively and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) in the 4^th respondent school from the date of appointment on 19.12.2019 with all consequential and attendant benefits including payment of salary from the date of appointment along with interest.

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Nedunchezhiyan For Mr. S.Sarath Chandran For Respondents : Mrs. Mythreye Chandru

1 to 3 Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“To call for the records relating to the proceedings issued by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents in Na.Ka.No.1457/Aa6/2024 dated 12.07.2024 and Na.Ka.No.774/Aa2/2021 dated 21.10.2024 respectively and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) in the 4^th respondent school from the date of appointment on 19.12.2019 with all consequential and attendant benefits including payment of salary from the date of appointment along with interest.”

2. The petitioner was appointed as a B.T. Assistant (Science) in the 4^th respondent School by orders of the 4^th respondent dated 19.12.2018. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the service in the post of the B.T. Assistant (Science) on 19.12.2018. The 4^th respondent school submitted a proposal on 19.12.2018, to the 3^rd respondent and to the 2^nd respondent for approval of his appointment. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent passed an impugned order dated 21.10.2024 rejecting the approval of appointment by referring to the order issued by the 2^nd respondent CEO dated 12.07.2024.

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 (Science) 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 streng