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 impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent Chief Educational Officer in Na.Ka.No.10686/Aa2/2023 dated 06.05.2024 and further proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent District Educational Officer, in Na.Ka.No.4818/A2/2022 dated 16.10.2024 and to quash the same in so far as insisting TET qualification is concerned and consequently directing the respondents 2 and 3 to pass orders for granting approval of appointment of the petitioner in the sanctioned post of BT. Assistant (Tamil) in the 4th respondent school from the date of appointment with effect from 01.02.2021 with all consequential and other attendant benefits including payment of arrears of salary from the date of appointment.

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“To call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent Chief Educational Officer in Na.Ka.No.10686/Aa2/2023 dated 06.05.2024 and further proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent District Educational Officer, in Na.Ka.No.4818/A2/2022 dated 16.10.2024 and to quash the same in so far as insisting TET qualification is concerned and consequently directing the respondents 2 and 3 to pass orders for granting approval of appointment of the petitioner in the sanctioned post of BT. Assistant (Tamil) in the 4th respondent school from the date of appointment with effect from 01.02.2021 with all consequential and other attendant benefits including payment of arrears of salary from the date of appointment. ”

The petitioner was appointed as a B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in the 4th respondent School by orders of the 4th respondent dated 30.01.2021. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the service in the post of the B.T. Assistant (Tamil) on 01.02.2021. Thereafter, the 4th respondent school submitted a proposal on 01.08.2023, to the 2nd respondent through the 3rd respondent for approval of her appointment. The 2nd respondent returned the proposal stating that TET pass certificate not enclosed along with the proposal. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent passed an impugned order dated 16.10.2024

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

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 (Tamil) 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 Divis