Petitioner challenged the rejection of approval of her appointment as part-time Sweeper in an aided school. The post was not sanctioned; the school had not sought sanction despite over 1500 students. Finding no infirmity in the rejecting order, the writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.21452 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.10.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)No.21452 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.23683 of 2023
K.Valarselvi
: Petitioner
Vs.
Department of School Education,
Fort Saint George,
Chennai – 600 008.
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
Madurai – 2.
Melur Educational District,
Melur,
Madurai District.
1/7
W.P.(MD)No.21452 of 2021
5.The Headmistress,
Lourdhu Annai Girls Higher Secondary School, K.Pudur,
Madurai – 625 007. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.6335/A1/2018 dated 25.02.2019 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the respondents to send the proposal to regularize the service of the petitioner as directed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.16132/2012 dated 16.02.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.C.Ramalingam For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.S.Shaji Bino, Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.5 : Mr.R.Hari Hara Selvan for M/s.Isaac Chambers
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 25.02.2019, passed by the fourth respondent, rejecting the proposal sent by the fifth respondent school seeking to approve 2/7
W.P.(MD)No.21452 of 2021
the appointment of the petitioner as part-time Sweeper in the fifth respondent school.
2. Under the impugned order, the proposal has been rejected on the ground that part-time Sweeper is not a sanctioned post in the fifth respondent school. Admittedly, the part-time Sweeper is not a sanctioned post. The same is also confirmed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, he would submit that in view of the strength of the fifth respondent school, which is having more than 1500 students, as per G.O.Ms.No.583, Education and Public Health Department dated 23.01.1966, the petitioner's appointment ought to have been approved and the fifth respondent school should have taken steps to seek sanction for the post of Sweeper in their school.
3. Admittedly, as on date, the post of part-time Sweeper in the fifth respondent school is not a sanctioned post. The petitioner's grievance in this Writ Petition is that the fifth respondent school has not taken steps to seek sanction for the post of Sweeper. Considering the strength of the fifth respondent school which is having more than 1500 students, G.O.Ms.No.583, will become applicable. For the fault of the fifth respondent school, the fourth respondent cannot be
3/7
W.P.(MD)No.21452 of 2021
blamed, who has passed the impugned order. Only due to the fact that the post of part-time Sweeper is not a sanctioned post, the fourth respondent has rejected the proposal sent by the fifth respondent school on 14.06.2018. Though the petitioner contends that no such proposal was sent by the fifth respondent pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.16132 of 2012, through order dated 16.02.2018, in the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent, there is a reference to such a proposal having been sent by the fifth respondent school.
4. A counter affidavit has also been filed categorically stating that a proposal was sent by the fifth respondent school on 14.06.2018, which was duly considered as per norms in force and only thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed.
5. Since the post of part-time Sweeper is not a sanctioned post in the fifth respondent school, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, there is no merit in this Writ Petition.
4/7
W.P.(MD)No.21452 of 2021
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.10.2025
Index :Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes/No MR
5/7
W.P.(MD)No.21452 of 2021
To
Madurai District.
6/7
W.P.(MD)No.21452 of 2021
ABDUL QUDDHOSE., J.
MR
W.P.(MD)No.21452 of 2021
15.10.2025
7/7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether rejection of the proposal to approve the petitioner's appointment as part-time Sweeper was valid when the post is not sanctioned.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.Valarselvi
The Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai
The Commissioner of School Education, Chennai
The Chief Educational Officer, Tallakulam, Madurai
The District Educational Officer, Melur Educational District, Madurai
The Headmistress, Lourdhu Annai Girls Higher Secondary School, K.Pudur, Madurai
Abdul Quddhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
