Dismissed¶62

N.Althaf v. The Commissioner of School Education

Madras HC6 Jan 2025WP/14635/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Approval of appointment of Office Assistant in Government aided minority school; non-teaching post; deployment of surplus staff; G.O.Ms.No.238 School Education Department dated 13/11/2018; G.O.(Ms) No.101 dated 18/5/2018; staff fixation proceedings RC.No.8525/B3/2019 dated 24/1/2020; refusal of approval by District Educational Officer, Chennai East; certiorarified mandamus; Article 226; Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973; Government power to revise norms and withdraw non-teaching posts; outsourcing policy; writ petition dismissed, miscellaneous petitions closed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Aided school managements spontaneously filling up non-teaching vacancies without adhering to the Government rules is not valid in law. ¶61

N.Althaf Vs The Commissioner of School Education — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned proceedings of the third respondent in O.Mu.No.2862/A1/2020 dated 21/6/2021 refusing approval of the petitioner's appointment as Office Assistant in the fourth respondent school from 26/10/2020 ought to be quashed and approval with arrears of salary directed. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Aided school managements spontaneously filling up non-teaching vacancies without adhering to the Government rules is not valid in law.

¶61

Ratio / Principle

On the materials produced (including the letter dated 19/8/2024 of the District Educational Officer (Secondary), Chennai South), the appointment of the petitioner as Office Assistant on 26/10/2020 could not be approved, since non-teaching vacancies in aided schools are to be filled only by deployment of surplus staff and 14 Office Assistant posts were found surplus with persons in Chennai Revenue District.

¶55

Key takeaways

The Government has the constitutional right to revise norms formulated several decades ago in light of present circumstances, and the power to prescribe norms for retaining non-teaching posts sanctioned to schools and to withdraw existing non-teaching posts.ratio¶56
Taking into account the huge expenditure on the State exchequer, the Government took a policy decision directing that posts be filled through outsourcing in Government Schools.ratio¶57
Observation that neither the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973 and 1974 specifies eligibility criteria for sanctioning each category of non-teaching post, nor is any requirement of prior permission from the competent authority to fill non-teaching vacancies specified in the said Act and Rules.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Vivek Kumar Singh, J.) dismissed Writ Petition No.14635 of 2021 (N. Althaf v. The Commissioner of School Education and others), filed under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash proceedings O.Mu.No.2862/A1/2020 dated 21/6/2021 of the District Educational Officer, Chennai East, and to direct approval of the petitioner's appointment as Office Assistant in Murthuzaviya Oriental Higher Secondary School (a Government aided minority institution) from 26/10/2020 with arrears of salary. The Court held that under G.O.Ms.No.238 School Education Department dated 13/11/2018, non-teaching vacancies in aided schools can be filled only by deployment of surplus staff within the revenue district (14 Office Assistant posts being surplus with persons in Chennai Revenue District); that the Government has the constitutional right to revise decades-old staffing norms and to prescribe or withdraw sanctioned non-teaching posts, having taken a policy decision favouring outsourcing in view of expenditure on the State exchequer; and that aided school managements filling non-teaching vacancies without adhering to Government rules is "not valid in law". The Court observed that the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973 and 1974 contain no specific provision on eligibility criteria for sanctioning non-teaching posts or on prior permission. Connected W.M.P.Nos.15520 and 15521 of 2021 were closed; no costs. The petitioner's minority-institution exemption plea was not expressly adjudicated.

¶1

Writ Petition No.14635 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 6/1/2025

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

¶6

Writ Petition No.14635 of 2021 a n d

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.15520 and 15521 of 2021

N. Althaf

Petitioner

The Commissioner of School Education DPI Campus, College Road Chennai 600 006.

¶12

The Chief Educational Officer Presidency Girls Higher Secondary School Egmore Chennai 600 008.

¶13

The District Educational Officer Chennai East Model Higher Secondary School Triplicane Chennai 600 005.

¶14

The Correspondent Murthuzaviya Oriental Higher Secondary School 12/186 Big Street Triplicane Chennai 600 005. ...

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

Page No:1/9

¶18

Writ Petition No.14635 of 2021

¶19

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent in O.Mu.No.2862/A1/2020 dated 21/6/2021 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to approve the appointment of petitioner in the regular sanctioned post of Office Assistant in the fourth respondent School from the date of appointment on 26/10/2020 including the payment of arrears of salary within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶20

For petitioner	...	Mr.Sarath P.Nair
		for Mr.G.Sankaran
For respondents	...	M/s.Mytheru Chandru
		Special Government Pleader
		- - - - -

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned proceedings dated 21/6/2021, issued by the third respondent, in O.Mu.No.2862/A1/2020 and consequently, direct the respondents to approve the appointment of petitioner in the regular sanctioned post of Office Assistant in the fourth respondent School from the date of appointment on 26/10/2020, including

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:2/9

¶24

Writ Petition No.14635 of 2021

¶25

the payment of arrears of salary.

¶26

The facts in brief are as follows:-

¶27

Fourth respondent School is a Government aided Minority Institution.

¶28

On the retirement of Mr.T.M.Humayun, on 31/1/2020, petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant, vide, appointment order dated 26/10/2020. When the fourth respondent School had forwarded a proposal to the second respondent through third respondent for the approval of the petitioner, with effect from 26/10/2020, third respondent issued the impugned communication dated 21/6/2021, stating that post of the petitioner as Office Assistant cannot be approved on the premise that as per G.O.Ms.No.238 School Education Department dated 13/11/2018, non teaching post in Government Aided Schools can be filled only by deployment of surplus staff working in other Schools within the revenue District and therefore, appointment by direct recruitment cannot be approved. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come forward with the instant writ petition praying for the relief as stated therein.

¶29

The District Educational Officer, Chennai East, has filed a counter,

¶30

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

¶31

Page No:3/9

¶32

Writ Petition No.14635 of 2021

¶33

wherein it is stated that the second respondent has already intimated to the fourth respondent that the post would be filled up after the retirement of the non-teaching staff only with the surplus person in the revenue District level, vide paragraph 8 of the staff fixation proceedings dated 24/1/2020 and the proceeding was also served to the School. In spite of the said intimation, School had appointed the writ petitioner on 26/102020. Thus, the appointment was made against the Rules in force.

¶34

Heard Mr.Sarath P.Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sytheru Chandru, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the appointment is made in the sanctioned post, as per staff fixation order, appointment in the post of Office Assistant ought to be approved by the Department. As far as the minority Institution is concerned, they are exempted under the provisions of the Act from seeking prior permission to fill up the teaching and non-teaching post in the School.

¶36

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Page No:4/9

¶37

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

¶38

Writ Petition No.14635 of 2021

¶39

respondents submitted that now, the Government has regulated the Chief Educational Officer to accord prior permission for filling up non-teaching staff in Aided High and Higher Secondary Schools, as per G.O.(Ms) No.101, School Education Department, dated 18/5/2018. Following this, Government had reiterated its decision in G.O.(MS) No.238 School Education Department dated 13/11/2018. Hence, prior permission should be obtained from the educational authority to fill up the non-teaching post in the Government Aided High and Higher Secondary Schools.

¶40

Perused the materials available on record.

¶41

There is no specific provision in the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973 and 1974 regarding the eligibity criteria to sanction each category of non-teaching post and the requirement of prior permission from the competent authority to fill up the vacancy of non-teaching post is not specified in the said Act and Rules.

¶42

It is relevant to extract the relevant portions from the return of appointment of approval proposal of the petitioner dated 30/3/2021.

¶43

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

¶44

Page No:5/9

¶45

Writ Petition No.14635 of 2021

¶46

(i). Any vacancy that arises in the post of Non-teaching staff in the

¶47

Minority and Non-minority aided School, it shall be filled with surplus nonteaching staff from other aided Schools only as per G.O.(MS) No.238 School Education {SC 6 (1) Department dated 13/11/2018 and the same was also instructed by the Chief Educational Officer, Chennai to the management of the School in paragraph 8 of the staff fixation orders issued vide RC.No.8525/B3/2019 dated 24/1/2020.

¶48

(ii). Without considering the same, management of the school has

¶49

appointed the petitioner on 26/10/2020 as Office Assistant without informing to Chief Educational Officer, Chennai.

¶50

(iii). In the Chennai Revenue District, there are 14 Office Assistant posts found surplus with persons and hence, any one of the surplus staff may be deployed to the Office Assistant vacant post of the said School.

¶51

(iv). Hence, the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Office Assistant on 26/10/2020 could not be approved.

¶52

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

¶53

Page No:6/9

¶54

Writ Petition No.14635 of 2021

¶55

The learned Special Government Pleader produced a letter dated 19/8/2024 of the District Educational Officer (Secondary) Chennai South, wherein it is stated that the Management of the School has appointed the petitioner on 26/10/2020 as Office Assistant without informing to Chief Educational Officer. At that time, in Chennai Revenue District, 14 posts of Office Assistants were found surplus with persons, and hence, any one of the surplus staff may be deployed to the Office Assistant vacant post of the said School. In such a view of the matter, appointment of the petitioner to the post of Office Assistant on 26/10/2020 could not be approved.

¶56

The Government have the constitutional right to revise the norms formulated several decades ago on the basis of the present circumstances. The Government has got the power of prescribing norms for retaining the non-teaching posts that are sanctioned to Schools and withdraw the existing non-teaching posts.

¶57

Taking into account of the huge expenditure on state exchequer,

¶58

Government had taken a policy decision directing to fill up through Page No:7/9

¶59

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

¶60

Writ Petition No.14635 of 2021

¶61

outsourcing in Government Schools. While so, aided School Managements spontaneously fill up the non-teaching vacancies without adhering to the Government rules and the same is not valid in law.

¶62

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶63

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

6/1/2025

mvs.

Index: yes/No

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶68

¶69

The Commissioner of School Education DPI Campus, College Road Chennai 600 006.

¶70

The Chief Educational Officer Presidency Girls Higher Secondary School Egmore Chennai 600 008.

¶71

The District Educational Officer Chennai East Model Higher Secondary School Triplicane Chennai 600 005.

¶72

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

¶73

Page No:8/9

¶74

Writ Petition No.14635 of 2021

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH,J

mvs.

W.P.No.14635 of 2021

6/1/2025

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

¶80

Page No:9/9

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Proceedings in O.Mu.No.2862/A1/2020 dated 21/6/2021 issued by the third respondent (District Educational Officer, Chennai East) stating that the petitioner's appointment as Office Assistant in the fourth respondent school could not be approved.¶28
Third respondent - District Educational Officer, Chennai East · 21/6/2021
Prior proceeding
On the retirement of Mr.T.M.Humayun on 31/1/2020, the fourth respondent school appointed the petitioner as Office Assistant by appointment order dated 26/10/2020; the school's proposal for approval was routed through the third respondent to the second respondent.¶28
Prior proceeding
Counter affidavit filed by the District Educational Officer, Chennai East, contending the appointment was made against the Rules in force despite intimation in the staff fixation proceedings.¶29
Prior proceeding
Staff fixation proceedings dated 24/1/2020 (paragraph 8) had intimated to the school that the post would be filled only with surplus personnel at revenue District level after retirement of non-teaching staff; the proceeding was served on the school.¶33
Prior proceeding
Return of appointment / approval proposal of the petitioner dated 30/3/2021 recorded that non-teaching vacancies in minority and non-minority aided schools shall be filled only with surplus non-teaching staff per G.O.(MS) No.238 dated 13/11/2018, that the management appointed the petitioner without informing the Chief Educational Officer, that 14 Office Assistant posts were surplus with persons in Chennai Revenue District, and that therefore the appointment could not be approved.¶47
Prior proceeding
Letter dated 19/8/2024 of the District Educational Officer (Secondary), Chennai South, produced by the learned Special Government Pleader, reiterating that the management appointed the petitioner without informing the Chief Educational Officer and that the appointment could not be approved as 14 Office Assistant posts were surplus in Chennai Revenue District.¶55

N.Althaf v. The Commissioner of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Althaf v. The Commissioner of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Vijaya Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Dr.M.Rafeek Ahmed Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

E.Vignesh Vs The Director of Public Libraries

Sasikala.K Vs The Chief Internal Audit officer

Sabir Kizhakkeyil Vs the Secretary to Government

Vignesh Vs The Principal Secretary