Dismissed¶57

The Director of Elementary Education v. St.Antonys R.C.Middle School

Madras HC13 Oct 2025WA(MD)/997/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Approval of sewing instructor appointment; staff fixation order dated 22.12.2010 binds State; G.O.Ms.No.132 dated 27.04.1998 (250 female students norm) not under challenge; impugned circular 02.06.2006 in Ne.Mu.Na.Ka.No.15880/Til/2006 unsustainable to extent contrary to G.O.; State responsible for erroneous staff fixation, cannot disavow sanctioned post; minority aided school, Udankudi/Thoothukudi Diocese; writ appeals W.A.(MD)Nos.997 and 998 of 2021 dismissed; precedents of both sides not referred; Madurai Bench, Madras High Court, 13.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; both writ appeals dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petitions closed, leaving the writ Court's direction approving the appointment intact. ¶57

The Director of Elementary Education Vs St.Antonys R.C.Middle School — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; both writ appeals dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petitions closed, leaving the writ Court's direction approving the appointment intact.

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the mandamus directing approval of Sr.Gilbert Jeya's appointment as Sewing Instructor with effect from 09.06.2008 was sustainable, given the appellant's contention that G.O.Ms.No.132 (dated 27.04.1998) requires 250 female students for the post whereas the School's strength fell short. +2 more

¶33

Ratio / Principle

To the extent the circular dated 02.06.2006 is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.132 dated 27.04.1998 (which the Court noted is a matter of policy and not under challenge, requiring a Sewing Instructor only if female student strength exceeds 250), the circular cannot be sustained.

¶50

Key takeaways

A staff fixation order dated 22.12.2010 relating to academic year 2010-11 was on record whereby the State sanctioned the post of Sewing Instructor despite taking note that the School had only 231 students (both girls and boys); the State thus sanctioned staff in violation of its own Government Order, and the Management was entitled to expect no different treatment.ratio¶50
Staff appointments by the Management proceed on the strength of staff fixation orders that must be drawn up having regard to the prevailing Government Order; on these facts the State had no justification to take an adverse view.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (Dr. Anita Sumanth and C. Kumarappan, JJ.) dismissed W.A.(MD)Nos.997 and 998 of 2021 on 13.10.2025, thereby upholding the writ Court's order dated 05.12.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.11753 of 2011 directing approval of Sr.Gilbert Jeya's appointment as Sewing Instructor in St.Antony's R.C.Middle School, Udankudi, from 09.06.2008 with attendant benefits. The State contended that G.O.Ms.No.132 (School Education Department, 27.04.1998) required 250 female students for the post, while strength was below that. Held: (i) the impugned circular dated 02.06.2006 in Ne.Mu.Na.Ka.No.15880/Til/2006 cannot stand to the extent it is contrary to the Government Order; (ii) a staff fixation order dated 22.12.2010 (academic year 2010-11) had sanctioned the post despite only 231 students, so the State acted in violation of its own Government Order and the Management was entitled to expect consistency; (iii) any deviation flowing from an erroneous staff fixation order is the State's responsibility, not the School's, and the State cannot disavow an appointment after sanctioning the post. The decisions cited by both sides were expressly not engaged with; appeals dismissed without costs and connected CMPs closed.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.997 and 998 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶7

W.A.(MD)Nos.997 and 998 of 2021 and

¶8

C.M.P(MD)Nos.4529 and 4530 of 2021

¶9

1.The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai.

¶10

2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

¶11

3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Udankudi-628 203, Thoothukudi District.

¶12

...Appellants in both appeals

¶13

/Vs./

¶14

1.St.Antony's R.C.Middle School, Represented by its Correspondent, Mr.Xariver Leoni Dhass, Udankudi-628 203, Thoothukudi District.

¶15

2.Manager of R.C.School, R.C.Diocese, Tuticorin Diocese, Catholic Bishop's House, Tuticorin-628 001.

¶16

3.Sr.Gilbert Jeya

¶17

... Respondents in both appeals

¶18

1/7

¶19

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

¶20

W.A.(MD)No.997 and 998 of 2021

¶21

COMMON PRAYER:- Writ Appeals - filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 05.12.2019 in W.P.(MD)No. 11753 of 2011 and allow the writ appeal.

¶22

In both appeals: For Appellant : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.G.Karthik, for M/s.Lajapathy Roy Associates

¶23

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶24

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

¶25

The State is on appeal as against decision dated 05.12.2019 of the writ Court.

¶26

2.The prayers in the writ petitions were a challenge to circular dated 02.06.2006 in Ne.Mu.Na.Ka.No.15880/Til/2006 and for a mandamus directing the respondent to approve the appointment of one Sr.Gilbert Jeya (R3) as Sewing Instructor with effect from the date of appointment i.e., 09.06.2008 with all service and monetary benefits.

¶27

3.The writ petition had come to be allowed directing approval

¶28

of appointment with effect from 09.06.2008, all attendant benefits to be paid within a period of two weeks from that order.

¶29

4.R3 was appointed in the School from 09.06.2008 in the vacancy caused by the retirement of one Mrs.Maruthambal, who worked

¶30

2/7

¶31

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

¶32

W.A.(MD)No.997 and 998 of 2021

¶33

as a sewing instructress till 31.05.2008. It is the case of the appellant’s represented by Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader, that G.O.Ms.No.132, School Education Department, dated 27.04.1998 requires the School to have a student strength of 250 female students in order to be entitled for the appointment of a Sewing Teacher. In the present case, the number of female students in the School as in 2011 was only 130 and hence, mandamus as sought ought not to have been granted.

¶34

5.In this regard, he would draw our attention to three decisions of this Court in The District Educational Officer, Tuticorin and another vs. P.Pon Selvi [W.A.(MD)No.1063 of 2020 dated 27.11.2024], State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary and others vs. The Secretary, EVA Vallimuthu High School [W.A.(MD)No.441 of 2019 dated 05.06.2025] and The Director of School Education, Chennai and others vs. Suyambulingam Higher Secondary School [W.A.(MD)No.1017 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025].

¶35

6.Per contra, Mr.G.Karthik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit that the order of the writ Court is perfectly in order, as the same view has been taken in other decisions as well and he cites the cases in The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District and another vs. D.Gnana Theeba Rani and another [W.A.(MD)No.675

¶36

3/7

¶37

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

¶38

W.A.(MD)No.997 and 998 of 2021

¶39

of 2024 dated 15.04.2024], The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary and others vs. M.Elda Mary [W.A.(MD)No.1692 of 2021 dated 30.08.2024] and The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary vs. The Correspondent, St.Joseph's Middle School [W.A.(MD)No.844 of 2024 dated 05.06.2024].

¶40

7.We have heard both learned counsel and perused the material papers including case law relied.

¶41

8.R3 had been appointed in the post caused due to the retirement of the erstwhile sewing instructress on 31.05.2008. It is an admitted fact that as in 2011, the student strength was less than 250. It is a fact that G.O.Ms.No.132 dated 27.04.1998 requires the appointment of a Sewing Instructor only if the female student strength is in excess of 250 students.

¶42

9.That is a matter of policy, and the said Government Order is not under challenge. The relevant portion of the impugned circular dated 02.06.2006 reads as follows:-

¶43

“nghUs; : njhlf;ff;fy;tp – 2006 - 2007 Mk; Mz;by; fhypg; gzpaplq;fs; epug;Gjy; 01.06.2006 md;W epug;gj; jFjpAs;s ,sepiy clw;fy;tp Mrpupau; / ijay; Mrpupau; gzpaplq;fs; tptuk; NfhUjy; - rhu;e;J

¶44

........ M. ifj;njhopy; Mrpupau; fhypg; gzpaplq;fis cWjp nra;Ak; NghJ ftdpf;fg;gl

¶45

4/7

¶46

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

¶47

W.A.(MD)No.997 and 998 of 2021

¶48

Ntz;bait

¶49

mtw;wpy; 6> 7> 8 tFg;Gfspy; khztpaupd; (ngz;fs; kl;Lk;) vz;zpf;if 150 kw;Wk; mjw;F Nky; cs;s gs;spfspy; cs;s ijay; Mrpupau; fhypg;gzpaplq;fs; tpguk; kl;LNk njuptpf;fg;gl Ntz;Lk;”

¶50

10.Hence, and to the extent the circular is contrary to the aforesaid Government Order, it cannot be sustained. However, on facts, we find a staff fixation order dated 22.12.2010 on record, relating to the academic year 2010-11, wherein, the State has sanctioned the post of Sewing Instructor, despite having taken note of the fact that there are only 231 students (both girls and boys) in the School at that time.

¶51

11.In such circumstances, it is clear that the State has, in fact, proceeded to sanction the staff strength in violation of its own Government Order. It is not unreasonable for the school Management to expect anything different for the present year. In such circumstances, we do not find any justification for the State to take an adverse view. Staff appointments by the Management is on the strength of the staff fixation orders that must be drawn up having regard to the prevailing Government Order.

¶52

Any deviation in appointment based on an erroneous staff fixation order must enure to the responsibility of the State and not the

¶53

5/7

¶54

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

¶55

W.A.(MD)No.997 and 998 of 2021

¶56

School. Having sanctioned the post of Sewing Instructor, the State cannot now turn around and disavow those appointments. We find no need to refer to the cases cited by the parties as this order is passed on the unique facts of this case.

¶57