Allowed¶38

The Director of Elementary Education, v. The Correspondent, Arockia Annai Primary School

Madras HC23 Jun 2025WA(MD)/265/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal allowed; approval of appointment of Secondary Grade Teacher set aside; surplus teachers redeployment within same educational agency (Roman Catholic Diocese of Kottar); 11 surplus teachers in same block; Arockia Annai Primary School, Kanyakumari; Director of Elementary Education; financial burden to State Exchequer; excess teachers over sanctioned posts; Clause 15 Letters Patent; W.P.(MD) No.7966 of 2018; W.A.(MD) No.320 of 2023; Secretary to Government vs. Iruthaya Amali (W.A.(MD)76 of 2019 batch); Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; S.M. Subramaniam, J.; 23.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; writ order dated 19.04.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.7966 of 2018 set aside; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.(MD) No.1904 of 2020) closed. ¶38

The Director of Elementary Education, Vs The Correspondent, Arockia Annai Primary School — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal allowed; writ order dated 19.04.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.7966 of 2018 set aside; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.(MD) No.1904 of 2020) closed.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ order approving the appointment of Smt.A.Joyce as Secondary Grade Teacher in the respondent school was sustainable, given the State's contention that it is contrary to the Act and Rules because 11 surplus teachers of the same educational agency are working in the same block. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Implementation of the writ order would pave the way for financial burden to the State Exchequer and for appointment of excess teachers over and above the sanctioned posts in schools administered by the same educational agency.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Where 11 surplus teachers are working in the same block under the same educational agency, grant of approval for a fresh appointment does not arise; the Diocese ought to have deputed one of the surplus teachers to the vacant post to avoid unnecessary financial loss to the State Exchequer.

¶26

Key takeaways

Surplus teachers working without sanction in the very same educational agency are required by the rules to be posted in the existing vacancy in order to avoid excess payments.ratio¶33
The writ order is infirm and is liable to be set aside.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), Division Bench (S.M. Subramaniam and Dr. A.D. Maria Clete, JJ.) allowed the State's writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and set aside the writ order dated 19.04.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.7966 of 2018, by which approval had been accorded to the appointment of Smt.A.Joyce as Secondary Grade Teacher (with effect from 01.06.2016) in Arockia Annai Primary School, run by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Kottar, Kanyakumari District. Held: where 11 surplus teachers of the same educational agency are working in various schools in the same block, grant of approval for a fresh appointment does not arise; the educational agency ought to have deputed a surplus teacher to the vacant post, since the rules require surplus teachers to be posted in existing vacancies to avoid excess payments. Approving further appointments while surplus teachers subsist would increase the number of teachers beyond sanctioned posts and burden the State Exchequer. The Court applied the procedure laid down in its earlier judgment dated 20.11.2023 in W.A.(MD) No.320 of 2023, quoting the redeployment principle settled by the Division Bench in Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department and others vs. Iruthaya Amali ([W.A.(MD)76 of 2019 etc., batch], dated 31.03.2021). Appeal allowed with no costs; connected C.M.P.(MD) No.1904 of 2020 closed.

¶1

W.A.(MD) No.265 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

W.A.(MD) No.265 of 2020 and

¶7

C.M.P.(MD) No.1904 of 2020

¶8

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

¶9

2.The District Elementary Educational Officer Nagercoil-629 001, Kanyakumari District

¶10

3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer Suchindram, Kanyakumari District ... Appellants

¶11

-vs-

¶12

The Correspondent Arockia Annai Primary School Arokiapuram Kanyakumari District ... Respondent

¶13

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 19.04.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) No.7966 of 2018, on the file of this Court.

¶14

Page 1 of 7

¶15

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

¶16

W.A.(MD) No.265 of 2020

¶17

For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : No appearance

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

[Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

¶20

The writ order dated 19.04.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) No.7966 of 2018, is sought to be assailed in the present writ appeal.

¶21

2. The State has preferred this writ appeal mainly on the ground that the relief sought for in the writ petition that the respondent – School is entitled for approval of appointment to one Smt.A.Joyce as Secondary Grade Teacher is contrary to the Act and Rules.

¶22

3. The respondent – School appointed one Smt.A.Joyce as a Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 01.06.2016. An application was submitted to the authorities concerned seeking approval to the said appointment. The authorities concerned scrutinized the application and found that in the same block, 11 surplus teachers are working in various schools administered by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Kottar.

¶23

Page 2 of 7

¶24

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

¶25

W.A.(MD) No.265 of 2020

¶26

4. When 11 surplus teachers are working in the same block, grant of approval for the appointment made would not arise at all, since the said Diocese ought to have deputed anyone of the surplus teachers in the vacant post in order to avoid unnecessary financial loss to the State Exchequer.

¶27

5. This Court has considered a similar issue in the Judgment dated 20.11.2023 in W.A.(MD) No.320 of 2023 and the relevant portion of the said Judgment reads as under:

¶28

“17.Therefore, on identification of surplus Teachers, they are to be redeployed in the vacancies available in the same school or in any other school within the Corporate Management / Joint Management as the case may be and if no posts are available either in the school, in which the Teacher is working or in the Corporate Management or in the Joint Management, then alone such Teachers are to be redeployed in any other school, where the vacancies are available. The said procedure is settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, school Education Department and others vs. Iruthaya Amali and another reported in [W.A. (MD)76 of 2019 etc., batch] dated

¶29

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶30

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

¶31

31.03.2021.”

¶32

W.A.(MD) No.265 of 2020

¶33

6. Since the Roman Catholic Diocese of Kottar is administering number of schools in the same block, 11 surplus teachers are working in the nearby schools, there is no necessity to appoint a new teacher and if any teacher is appointed, it would result in unnecessary financial loss to the State Exchequer. The Writ Court has not considered this fact, but, considered the point that the sanctioned post was vacant in the respondent – School and in the said post, a Secondary Grade Teacher was appointed and thus, the appointment is to be approved. However, the said ground deserves no acceptability in view of the fact that without sanction of post, 11 teachers are working in the nearby schools administered by the same educational agency, namely, Roman Catholic Diocese of Kottar. When surplus teachers are working without sanction in the very same educational agency, the rules require all those surplus teachers are to be posted in the existing vacancy in order to avoid excess payments. In the event of appointing teachers in this way, it will result in increase of surplus teachers rather than accommodating the surplus teachers in any of the existing vacancies. Thus, the order of the Writ Court, if it is implemented, would not only pave way for financial burden

¶34

_____________ Page 4 of 7_

¶35

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

¶36

W.A.(MD) No.265 of 2020

¶37

to the State Exchequer, but also appointment of excess teachers over and above the sanctioned post in various schools administered by the same educational agency. For example, if 100 posts are sanctioned in 10 schools administered by the same educational agency and if 10 surplus teachers are working and if further appointments are made in any one of the schools in the sanctioned post, it will only result in increasing the number of teachers and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the writ order is infirm and the same is liable to the set aside.

¶38

7. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed and the writ order dated 19.04.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) No.7966 of 2018, is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

[S.M.S., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.] 23.06.2025

¶40

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶41

krk

¶42

_____________ Page 5 of 7_

¶43

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

¶44

W.A.(MD) No.265 of 2020