Allowed¶45

G.Viji Jasmine v. the Director of School Education

Madras HC9 Apr 2025WP/34152/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Teacher appointment approval — B.T.Assistant (English) in aided school; Chief Educational Officer's rejection quashed; surplus B.T.Assistants held no legal impediment to approval; approval a matter for educational authorities; direction to pass orders per Director's proceedings Na.Ka.No.005644/D1/E1/2023 dt. 12.10.2023 within eight weeks; Madras High Court; Article 226; writ of certiorarified mandamus; education/service law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order in Mu.Mu.No.673/A4/2023 dated 31.10.2023 quashed; second respondent directed to pass orders based on the first respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.No.005644/D1/E1/2023 dated 12.10.2023 within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions (W.M.P.Nos.34031 and 34032 of 2023) closed. ¶45

G.Viji Jasmine Vs the Director of School Education — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent's order in Mu.Mu.No.673/A4/2023 dated 31.10.2023 rejecting approval of the petitioner's appointment as B.T.Assistant (English) is sustainable, given the respondents' contention that surplus B.T.Assistants exist in the school.

¶40

Court's answer

Even assuming that there are qualified B.T.Assistants who are surplus in the respondent Management, it is for the Educational Authorities to pass appropriate orders, and such surplus cannot be a legal impediment to approving the petitioner's appointment.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Since the first respondent had already directed the second respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the proposal submitted by the 4th respondent school, the second respondent ought to have considered the petitioner's plea and accepted it instead of rejecting it.

¶39

Key takeaways

The order passed by the second respondent in Mu.Mu.No.673/A4/2023 dated 31.10.2023, rejecting the proposal of the petitioner, is liable to be quashed and is quashed.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.), 09.04.2025 — G. Viji Jasmine v. Director of School Education & others (W.P.No.34152 of 2023). The petitioner, appointed B.T.Assistant (English) in the 4th respondent aided school on 04.01.2022 against a sanctioned vacancy arising on 31.05.2018, challenged the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil's order (Mu.Mu.No.673/A4/2023, dated 31.10.2023) rejecting approval of her appointment. Held: even assuming qualified B.T.Assistants are surplus in the management, it is for the Educational Authorities to pass appropriate orders, and such surplus is no legal impediment to approval; having been directed by the first respondent's order/proceedings dated 12.10.2023 to act on the school's proposal, the second respondent ought to have accepted rather than rejected it. The impugned order was quashed and the Chief Educational Officer directed to pass orders pursuant to Na.Ka.No.005644/D1/E1/2023 dated 12.10.2023 within eight weeks. Writ petition disposed of accordingly; no costs; connected W.M.Ps closed.

¶1

W.P.No.34152 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED:09.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

W.P.No.34152 of 2023

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.34031 and 34032 of 2023

G. Viji Jasmine

.. Petitioner

Versus

1.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶13

The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

The District Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶15

The Correspondent, Duthie Higher Secondary for Girls, Nagercoil – 629 001 Kanyakumari District.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

Prayer: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶18

of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent in

¶19

1/8

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.34152 of 2023

¶22

Mu.Mu.No.673/A4/2023 dated 31.10.2023 and to quash the same, and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appointment of the petitioner to the post of B.T.Assistant ( English) in 4^th Respondent school from the date of appointment i.e., 04.01.2022, including payment of arrears of salary, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and pass orders.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondents 1 -3 : Mr.S.Prabhakaran, GA For Respondent-4 :Mr.K.Sathish Kumar

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent in Mu.Mu.No.673/A4/2023 dated 31.10.2023 and to quash the same, and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appointment of the petitioner to the post of B.T.Assistant ( English) in 4^th Respondent school from the date of appointment i.e., 04.01.2022, including payment of arrears of salary, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court and pass orders.

¶26

2/8

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.34152 of 2023

¶29

2.The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a B.T.Assistant ( English) in the 4^th respondent school on 04.01.2022, though in the sanctioned vacancy caused on 31.05.2018. The sum and substance of the case is that the petitioner is fully qualified for the post of B.T.Assistant ( English), hence, the 4^th Respondent School submitted a proposal to the department seeking approval of the petitioner's appointment vide letter dated 18.04.2022. However, the same was not considered, due to which the petitioner filed W.P.No.6686 of 2023, and the same was disposed of on 03.03.2023, with a direction to the respondents to consider the proposal of the petitioner, and pass orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Thereafter, on 12.10.2023, the first respondent passed an order, wherein there was a direction to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the proposal submitted by the 4^th respondent. Pursuant to this, the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 was passed by the 2^nd respondent wherein, the claim for approval of petitioner's appointment was rejected, which has given rise to this petition.

¶30

3/8

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.34152 of 2023

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent on 31.10.2023 are ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and against the law, and the same is liable to be quashed, as it has been passed without appreciating the fact that the appointment of the petitioner was made in the sanctioned post of B.T.Assistant(English) in C.S.I. Management Schools, and hence, the appointment of petitioner ought to be approved by the Department. Hence, prays to allow this petition.

¶34

The learned Government Advocate has filed a counter affidavit wherein, it has been stated that there are surplus teachers in the cadre of B.T.Assistant in the petitioner's School. Some of them are qualified to be appointed as PG Assistants. In case any of them have given relinquishing letter, the same should be recorded in the Service book. Unless such relinquishment is recorded in the Service Book, their names have to be considered for being promoted to P.G.Assistant. Without promoting qualified B.T.Assistant, candidates in the said school, the petitioner's Management cannot go for a direct recruitment of PG Assistants. Therefore, he prayed for sustaining the orders passed by the 4/8

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.34152 of 2023

¶37

authorities.

¶38

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶39

On a perusal of records, it is seen that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.6686 of 2023 on 03.03.2023, the Joint Director of School Education(Secondary)issued proceedings dated 12.10.2023, wherein, there was a direction to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the proposal submitted by the 4^th respondent school. Hence, the second respondent ought to have considered the plea of the petitioner and accepted the same, instead of rejecting the same.

¶40

The core contention of the respondents is that there are surplus B.T.Assistants, due to which they are unable to accept the prayer sought for by the petitioner. This Court is of the view that even assuming that there are qualified B.T.Assistants who are surplus in the respondent Management, it is for the Educational Authorities to pass appropriate

¶41

orders. Such a ground cannot be a legal impediment to approvethe 5/8

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.34152 of 2023

¶44

appointment of the petitioner.

¶45

In view of the above, it is made clear that the order passed by the second respondent in Mu.Mu.No.673/A4/2023 dated 31.10.2023, wherein they have rejected the proposal of the petitioner, is liable to be quashed and accordingly the same is quashed. The second respondent is directed to pass orders based on the proceedings issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.005644/D1/E1/2023, dated 12.10.2023, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶46

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶47

09.04.2025

¶48

Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Index : Yes/No smn

¶49

6/8

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.34152 of 2023

¶52

¶53