Approval for appointment to a sanctioned post in a minority institution cannot be rejected based on subsequent surplus status or lack of TET qualification, as TET is not mandatory for minority schools.

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 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.6157/A3/2025, dated 07.01.2026 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (History) in the 4th respondent school, w.e.f., 02.06.2025 with all consequential monetary benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr. R.D.Ashok Kumar

For Mr. S.N.Ravichandran

For Respondents : Mr. M.Bindran

1 to 3 Additional Government Pleader

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 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.6157/A3/2025, dated 07.01.2026 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (History) in the 4th respondent school, w.e.f., 02.06.2025 with all consequential monetary benefits.”

2. The petitioner was appointed as a B.T.Assistant (History) in the 4th respondent School by orders of the 4th respondent dated 02.06.2025. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the service in the post of the B.T.Assistant (History). The 4th respondent school submitted a proposal on 02.06.2025, to the 2nd respondent through the 3rd respondent for approval of her appointment, with effect from 02.06.2025. However, the same was rejected stating that the said post was surplus post.

3. Challenging the rejection of approval for sanctioned post in the 4th 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 (History) 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 against and it has become final. The appointment of Sr.Roselet Mary was on 08.06.2017. Therefore, it is within the period 2016-2017 for the purposes of staff fixation. The fact that at the staff fi