Government Orders imposing bans on fresh appointments or restricting the approval of non-teaching staff in government institutions do not apply to sanctioned posts in private aided minority schools, especially when such orders have been previously struck down by the Court.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“ Call for the entire records connected with impugned order passed by the 4th respondent vide in Oo.Mu.No. 2689/A4/2025,dated 06.01.2026 and quash the same and directing the 3rd Respondent to approve the appointment of the Petitioner as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 01.08.2002, with all consequential benefits, in the light of the order passed in W.P.(Md).No.11481 of 2008 etc, batch, Deva Asir Vs The Secretary to Government, reported in 2016(3) LLJ 49”

Brief Facts :-

2. The case of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent School is an aided religious as well as linguistic minority institution. In the said institution a vacancy arose for the post of Junior Assistant due to the retirement of Mr. C. Noor Mohammad on 31.01.2002. Since the vacancy arose in a sanctioned post, and in view of the fact that the 5th respondent School is an aided minority institution, the petitioner was duly selected and appointed as Junior Assistant on 01.08.2002 by following the prescribed procedure. Pursuant to the appointment, the Management of the 5th respondent School had submitted a proposal to the 4th respondent seeking approval of the petitioner’s appointment as Junior Assistant with effect from 01.08.2002. However, the 4th respondent kept the proposal pending by citing G.O. Ms. No. 212 dated 29.11.2001, which imposed a ban on appointments. The said Government Order is not applicable to aided school managements, as they are not Government entities.

3. Subsequently, the aforesaid Government Order imposing the ban on appointment of non-teaching staff in Government institutions was lifted vide G.O. Ms. No. 14, P&L Department, dated 07.02.2006. Thereafter, the 4th respondent, by proceedings dated 15.03.2006, approved the appointment of the petitioner, but granted salary only with effect from 07.02.2006, instead of from the date of initial appointment, i.e., 01.08.2002.

4. The petitioner would submit that due to non-approval of his appointment from 01.08.2002, he has been deprived of salary for the period from 01.08.2002 to 06.02.2006 and has also been denied the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. The petitioner would further submit that, in identical circumstances, a similarly placed person, namely Mr. Peter Paul, had filed W.P. No. 1783 of 2020 seeking approval of his appointment from the date of initial appointment. By order dated 20.02.2020, this Court had allowed the said Writ Petition and directed approval of appointment from the date of initial appointment, holding that the ban imposed under G.O. Ms. No.12 dated 29.11.2001 would not apply to aided school managements. The said order was implemented by the respondents, and the petitioner therein was extended the benefit of approval from the initial date of appointment and brought under the Old Pension Scheme.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner being similarly placed, submitted a detailed representation seeking approval of his appointment as Junior Assistant with effect from 01.08.2002 and for extension of the Old Pension Scheme. The 5th respondent had also forwarded a proposal to the 4th respondent in this regard. However, by the impugned order dated 06.01.2026, the 4th respondent rejected the request for approval from 01.08.2002 by placing reliance on G.O. Ms. No.

115 dated 30.05.2007.

6. The petitioner would submit that neither G.O. Ms. No. 212 dated

29.11.2001 nor G.O. Ms. No. 14 dated 07.02.2006 applies to aided school managements. Further, this Court, by order in W.P. (MD) No. 11481 of 2008, set aside G.O. Ms. No. 115 dated 30.05.2007 and G.O. Ms. No. 203, School Education Department, dated 23.07.2010, and held that sanctioned non-teaching posts in aided schools cannot be outsourced. This Court also directed the approval of such posts with all consequential monetary benefits. Despite the same, the