The Director of School Education Vs J D Christopher Asir — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The Director of School Education Vs J D Christopher Asir — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; writ appeal dismissed with no costs and connected C.M.P.(MD)No.12265 of 2025 closed, leaving intact the single Judge's direction to respondents 2 and 3 to approve the petitioner's appointment with effect from 04.08.2017 with all attendant benefits within 12 weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeal warranted interference with the single Judge's order dated 19.10.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.22730 of 2024, which set aside the Department's order and directed approval of the petitioner's appointment as B.T.Assistant (English). +1 more

Court's answer

Interference with the single Judge's order dated 19.10.2024 is not warranted; the writ appeal stands dismissed, with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Ratio / Principle

As fairly conceded by the learned Special Government Pleader, during the relevant time there was no surplus teacher in the subject of English; surplus teachers existed only in the subjects of Maths and Science.

Key takeaways

Since there was no surplus English teacher, the ground projected in the rejection order cannot be sustained; the learned single Judge rightly set aside the impugned order and granted relief to the writ petitioner.ratio¶¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar JJ., Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, 06.08.2025) dismissed the Department's writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Petatent against the single Judge's order dated 19.10.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.22730 of 2024, with no costs, closing connected C.M.P.(MD)No.12265 of 2025. Third round of litigation: J.D.Christopher Asir, appointed B.T.Assistant (English) on 03.08.2017 (the quoted single-Judge order records 04.08.2017) at St.Andrews Girls Higher Secondary School, Ramanathapuram (aided minority institution), had his approval proposal successively refused — first for want of TET qualification (objection overridden in W.P.(MD)No.13935 of 2018, allowed 29.06.2018), then on the plea of surplus teachers in the same corporate management's school (W.P.(MD)No.10705 of 2020, clubbed with W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019 batch, no specific direction to him), culminating in the Department's order dated 21.03.2023. The single Judge had set that order aside as non-application of mind and directed respondents 2 and 3 to approve the appointment with effect from 04.08.2017 with all attendant benefits within 12 weeks. In the appeal, the Special Government Pleader conceded there was no surplus teacher in English during the relevant time (surplus only in Maths and Science); the Bench therefore held the rejection ground unsustainable, found no warrant for interference, and dismissed the appeal.

1 W.A.(MD)NO.2130 OF 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 06.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

W.A.(MD)No.2130 of 2025 AND C.M.P.(MD)No.12265 of 2025

The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai.

The Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

The District Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. ... Appellants / Respondents 1 to 3

Vs.

J.D.Christopher Asir, B.T.Assistant (English),

St.Andrews Girls Higher Secondary School, Ramnad, Ramanathapuram District. ... 1^st Respondent / Writ petitioner

St.Andrews Girls Higher Secondary School, Rep. by its Correspondent, Ramnad District, Ramanathapuram. ... 2^nd Respondent / 4^th Respondent

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2 W.A.(MD)NO.2130 OF 2025

Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 19.10.2024 made in W.P.(MD)No.22730 of 2024 on the file of this Court.

For Appellants : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, Special Government Pleader.

For Respondents : Ms.H.Jasima Yasmin, for M/s.Ajmal Associates.

J U D G M E N T

Heard both sides.

The writ petitioner was appointed as B.T.Assistant(English)

on 03.08.2017 in the St.Andrews Girls Higher Secondary School, Ramanathapuram. When the proposal was submitted seeking approval of the appointment, the Department returned the same on the ground that the appointee is not having TET qualification. The said order was put to challenge in W.P.(MD)No.13935 of 2018 and it was allowed on 29.06.2018. The said order had become final. When the proposal was resubmitted, it was returned on the ground that there were surplus teachers available in the school run by the very

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3 W.A.(MD)NO.2130 OF 2025

same corporate management. Assailing the same, W.P.(MD)No.10705 of 2020 was filed and it was clubbed along with W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019 etc. batch. No specific direction was given in the said writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, when W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019 etc. batch was disposed of.

The Department proceeded on the premise that the writ petition filed by the first respondent suffered dismissal and accordingly issued order dated 21.03.2023. Challenging the same, W.P(MD)No.22730 of 2024 was filed. The learned single Judge vide order dated 19.10.2024 allowed the writ petition in the following terms:-

“10. This is the third round of litigation at the instance of the teacher, who was appointed on 04.08.2017 as B.T.Assistant (English) in the fourth respondent aided minority institution.

In the first round of litigation, this Court was pleased to direct the authorities to consider the proposal of the school management without insisting upon TET certificate. In the second round of litigation, challenging the order, dated 30.06.2019, the Hon’ble Division Bench of

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4 W.A.(MD)NO.2130 OF 2025

this Court pleased to pass series of direction to consider how the surplus has to be dealt with.

A perusal of the order, dated 30.06.2019 will clearly indicate that it is a result of non-application of mind. A Mathematics teacher or a Science teacher would not be in a position to handle the English subject. Therefore, such reason assigned is not sustainable in law.

In view of the above said facts, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside and the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 04.08.2017 with all attendant benefits and pass orders within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ”

Aggrieved by the same, the department has filed this writ appeal.

It is fairly conceded by the learned Special Government Pleader that during the relevant time, there was no surplus teacher in the subject of English, but there were surplus teachers in the subjects of Maths and Science. Therefore, the ground projected in the 4/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5 W.A.(MD)NO.2130 OF 2025

rejection order cannot be sustained. The learned single Judge rightly set aside the impugned order and granted relief to the writ petitioner. Interference with the said order is not warranted. This writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (K.RAJASEKAR, J.) 6^th August 2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

PMU

5/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6 W.A.(MD)NO.2130 OF 2025

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

AND

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

PMU

W.A.(MD)No.2130 of 2025

06.08.2025

6/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7 W.A.(MD)NO.2130 OF 2025

7/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 19.10.2024 of the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.22730 of 2024 allowing the writ petition: held the order dated 30.06.2019 to be a result of non-application of mind, set aside the order impugned therein, and directed respondents 2 and 3 to approve the petitioner's appointment with effect from 04.08.2017 with all attendant benefits within 12 weeks. The present writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeks to set aside this order.¶¶19
This Court (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court), learned single Judge · 19.10.2024
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appointed as B.T.Assistant (English) on 03.08.2017 at St.Andrews Girls Higher Secondary School, Ramanathapuram; proposal for approval of the appointment returned by the Department on the ground that the appointee did not possess TET qualification.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
First round: challenge in W.P.(MD)No.13935 of 2018 succeeded; allowed on 29.06.2018 and that order became final.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
On resubmission of the proposal, it was returned on the ground that surplus teachers were available in the school run by the same corporate management.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
Second round: assailing the surplus-teachers return, W.P.(MD)No.10705 of 2020 was filed and clubbed along with W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019 etc. batch; no specific direction was given in the petitioner's writ petition when that batch was disposed of.¶¶30
Prior proceeding
Department proceeded on the premise that the first respondent's writ petition had suffered dismissal and issued order dated 21.03.2023.¶¶31
Prior proceeding
Challenging the order dated 21.03.2023, W.P(MD)No.22730 of 2024 was filed; the learned single Judge, by order dated 19.10.2024, treated the order dated 30.06.2019 as a result of non-application of mind (a Mathematics or Science teacher cannot handle English), set aside the order impugned in that writ petition, and directed respondents 2 and 3 to approve the appointment with effect from 04.08.2017 with all attendant benefits and pass orders within 12 weeks.¶¶39