The Correspondent Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceeding issued by the fourth respondent DEO vide impugned proceedings in A.Thi.Mu.No.4702/a2/2025 dated 14.08.2025, quash the same and further direct the third respondent Chief Educational Officer herein to approve forthwith the appointment of K.Perumal as BT Assistant English in the petitioner's school namely, St.Britto Higher Secondary School, Gnanolivupuram w.e.f., 04.06.2025 and disburse the grant-in-aid towards her salary and allowances w.e.f., the said date with all attendant benefits.

¶21

For Petitioner : M/s.A.Amala

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This writ petition has been filed for a writ of Certioarified Mandamus to quash the impugned proceeding issued by the fourth respondent vide impugned proceedings in A.Thi.Mu.No.4702/a2/2025 dated 14.08.2025 and further direct the third respondent to approve forthwith the appointment of S.Charles as BT Assistant English in the petitioner's school w.e.f., 04.06.2025 and disburse the grant-in-aid

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD).No.26649 of 2025

¶28

towards her salary and allowances w.e.f., the said date with all attendant

¶29

benefits.

¶30

2.The proposal submitted by the petitioner had been returned on the ground that the petitioner's institution had challenged the staff fixation strength and declaration of surplus Teachers before this Court. The petitioner's institution had appointed a B.T. Assistant (English) on 04.06.2025. Even under the staff fixation order, no surplus had been declared with regard to the aforesaid subject.

¶31

3.In view of the same, the reason assigned for returning the proposal, on the ground that the petitioner’s institution had challenged the staff fixation order, cannot be sustained.

¶32

4.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to resubmit the proposal that was returned under the impugned order and on such re-submission, the third respondent is directed to consider the proposal of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

3/5

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD).No.26649 of 2025

¶36