IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 12.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA W.P.No. 27302 of 2024 &

W.M.P.No. 29801 of 2024 C.Thufail Ahmed ...Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director of Elementary Educational Officer, College Road, Chennai 600 006.

2.The District Educational Officer (Elementary)

Ranipet, Ranipet District.

3.The Block Educational Officer, Block Educational Office, Arcot Range, Ranipet District.

4.The Correspondent, F.M.Aided Primary School, Melvisharam, Ranipet District .

5.Premalatha ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.2132/Aa4/2023, dated 18.12.2023, and the consequential reliving order passed by the 4^th respondent, dated 06.01.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher, in the 4^th respondent school w.e.f 03.10.2017, with all consequential monetary benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr. S.N.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mrs. Mythreye Chandru

1 to 3 Special Government Pleader For Respondents : No Appearance

4 & 5

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“To call for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.2132/Aa4/2023, dated 18.12.2023, and the consequential reliving order passed by the 4^th respondent, dated 06.01.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher, in the 4^th respondent school w.e.f 03.10.2017, with all consequential monetary benefits.”

2. The 4^th respondent is an Aided Religious and Linguistic Minority Institution. The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4^th respondent School by orders of the 4^th respondent dated 01.10.2017. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the service in the post of the Secondary Grade Teacher on 03.10.2017.

Thereafter, the 4^th respondent school submitted a proposal on 05.10.2017, to the 2^nd respondent through the 3^rd respondent for approval of his appointment, with effect from 03.10.2017. However, the same was rejected stating that according to the teachers fixation for the academic year 2016 – 2017 the said post was 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 secondary grade teacher 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 j