IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 12.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA W.P.No. 9922 of 2025 &

W.M.P.No. 11134 of 2025 A.Frankline ...Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The District Educational Officer Virudachalam, Cuddalore District.

3.The Block Educational Officer, Nallur Union, Virudachalam

4.The Correspondent, Danish Mission Elementary School, Virudachalam ...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.3979/A3/2025, dated 23.01.2025, and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher, in the 4^th respondent school w.e.f 05.08.2023, 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.3979/A3/2025, dated 23.01.2025, and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher, in the 4^th respondent school w.e.f 05.08.2023, with all consequential monetary benefits.”

2. The 4^th respondent is an Aided Religious 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 29.07.2023. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the service in the post of the Secondary Grade Teacher on 05.08.2023. Thereafter, the 4^th respondent school submitted a proposal on 03.09.2023, to the 2^nd respondent through the 3^rd respondent for approval of his appointment, with effect from 05.08.2023. However, the same was rejected stating that the petitioner did not pass TET examination and that the said 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 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 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 ag