Allowed

A.LeethiyalAnnapackiyam v. The District Educational Officer (Elementary)

Madras HC9 Jul 2026WP(MD)/12399/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged the denial of appointment approval from the date of actual appointment due to surplus teacher availability. The High Court quashed the order restricting the backdate and directed approval from 01.11.2018, relying on a prior judgment regarding the mechanism for ascertaining surplus teachers.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings quashed to deny approval prior to 07.08.2023; respondents directed to grant approval from 01.11.2018 with consequential benefits within eight weeks.

A.LeethiyalAnnapackiyam Vs The District Educational… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.12399 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.12399 of 2026

¶7

A.LeethiyalAnnapackiyam

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

1.The District Educational Officer (Elementary), Kovilpatty.

¶11

2.The Block Educational Officer-II, Pudur Union, Tuticorin District.

¶12

3.The Correspondent, TNDTA Primary School, Nagalapuram,

¶13

Pudur Union, Tuticorin District. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings in Pa.Mo.No.1625/A5/2024 dated 04.07.2024 insofar as denial of approval from 01.11.2018 to 06.08.2023 and QUASH the same and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher from the date of appointment i.e., from 01.11.2018 with salary and all other consequential benefits.

¶15

1/7

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.12399 of 2026

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Prasad

¶19

For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.C.Jeganathan Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu

¶20

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Heard Mr.A.Arun Prasad, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and

¶23

Mr.C.Jeganathan, learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu for Respondents 1 and 2.

¶24

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the order passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings in Pa.Mo.No.1625/A5/2024 dated 04.07.2024 insofar as denial of approval from 01.11.2018 to 07.08.2023 and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher from the date of appointment i.e., from 01.11.2018 with salary and all other consequential benefits.

¶25

The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.11.2018 and, accordingly, the 3^rd respondent submitted a proposal seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioner before the 1^st 2/7

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.12399 of 2026

¶28

respondent. However, instead of approving the appointment of the petitioner from 01.11.2018, the 1^st respondent approved the same only with effect from 07.08.2023 vide impugned proceedings dated 04.07.2024 on the ground that there were surplus teachers available in the Management under which the 3^rd respondent is functioning and, therefore, the 3^rd respondent was not entitled to appoint the petitioner as a Secondary Grade Teacher without exhausting the surplus teachers available under the same Management.

¶29

When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that there was no mechanism to ascertain surplus teachers prior to 01.11.2018. Therefore, the question of the availability of surplus teachers as on the date of appointment of the petitioner, i.e., 01.11.2018, does not arise.

¶30

He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.76 of 2019, dated 31.03.2021, and contended that the learned Division Bench had held that the mechanism providing for ascertaining surplus teachers would operate prospectively

¶31

3/7

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.12399 of 2026

¶34

from the date of the said judgment, i.e., 31.03.2021. He further contended that since the appointment of the petitioner was prior to 31.03.2021, the question of granting approval to the petitioner only on the ground of the availability of surplus staff under the same Management does not arise.

¶35

On the other hand, Mr.C.Jeganathan, learned Counsel appearing for the Government of Tamil Nadu for the respondents, fairly submitted that, in terms of the Division Bench judgment dated 31.03.2021 in W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019 batch, it has been clarified that there was no mechanism available for ascertaining surplus teachers prior to 31.03.2021. Therefore, as the petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher prior to 31.03.2021, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019 batch.

¶36

In the light of the above, the impugned order, which was issued solely on the ground of the availability of surplus staff under the Management of the 3^rd respondent School, thereby refusing to grant approval from the actual date of appointment of the petitioner, cannot be

¶37

4/7

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.12399 of 2026

¶40

sustained. Therefore, the impugned proceeding is quashed to the extent they grant approval only with effect from 07.08.2023, and the Writ Petition is allowed, directing respondents 1 and 2 to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from the actual date of appointment, i.e., 01.11.2018 , and to issue necessary proceedings as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and to release all the consequential benefits.

¶41

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

09.07.2026 Index :Yes / No Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No Nsr

¶43

5/7

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.12399 of 2026

¶46

To:

¶47

1.The District Educational Officer (Elementary), Tuticorin District.

¶48

2.The Block Educational Officer-II, Pudur Block, Tuticorin District.

¶49

3.The Correspondent, TNDTA Primary School, K.Duraisamypuram, Tuticorin District.

¶50

6/7

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.(MD)No.12399 of 2026

¶53

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

¶54

Nsr

¶55

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.12399 of 2026

¶56

09.07.2026

¶57

7/7

¶58

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

A.LeethiyalAnnapackiyam v. The District Educational Officer (Elementary)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.LeethiyalAnnapackiyam v. The District Educational Officer (Elementary)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Mary Jobitha Vs The Director of Elementary Education

P.Valiya Mary Vs State of Tamilnadu

D.Chandrasekaran, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Parimaladevi Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Grenabkarunyadeepa G Vs The District Educational Officer (Elementary)

Balaguru B Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited