W.P.(MD) No.10707 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P.(MD) No.10707 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) No.8375 of 2026 T.Selva Arputha Rani ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary to Government School Education Department St.George Fort, Chennai-9 2.The Director of Elementary Education DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-6 3.The District Elementary Educational Officer O/o.the District Elementary Educational Officer Dindigul, Dindigul District 4.The Correspondent St.James R.C.Primary School Mangamanuthu Siluvathur Post Dindigul District ... Respondents ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.10707 of 2026 PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.697/A5/2023, dated 24.07.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent school w.e.f. 07.03.2019 with arrears of salary and all other monetary benefits within the period that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Nawazkhan for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.C.Jeganathan Counsel for the Govt. of Tamil Nadu for R1 to R3 No appearance for R4 O R D E R This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.697/A5/2023, dated 24.07.2024, issued by the third respondent, whereby the proposal submitted by the fourth respondent – School seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in their School was negatived by the third respondent, on the ground that there are surplus teachers working in the Corporate Management, which runs the fourth respondent – School. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.10707 of 2026 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no mechanism provided for ascertaining the surplus staff prior to the issuance of the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.165, School Education Department, dated 17.09.2019 and whereas, the petitioner herein was appointed much prior to the issuance of the said Government Order. He also further brought to the notice of this Court a decision of the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.76 of 2019 etc., batch, dated 31.03.2021, in The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9 & others vs. Iruthaya Amali and another, wherein certain guidelines have been laid down for ascertaining the surplus staff and the date of the said decision is taken as the crucial date for ascertaining the surplus staff working in the Private and Minority Schools. He also brought to the notice of this Court yet another decision of the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.430 of 2026, dated 27.03.2026, in The District Educational Officer (Elementary), Tirunelveli District & another vs. D.John Wessly and another, wherein the learned Division Bench has taken note of the decision in Iruthaya Amali's case and held that the decision in Iruthaya Amali's case operates prospectively from the date of the decision i.e., 31.03.2021. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.10707 of 2026 3. As seen from the impugned proceedings, it is evident that the fourth respondent – School comes under a Corporate Management, wherein 27 Secondary Grade Teachers were found surplus from the academic year 2018-2019 onwards and in spite of availability of such huge surplus staff, the fourth respondent – School chose to appoint the petitioner herein on the date on which the post of Secondary Grade Teacher fell vacant, without adjusting the surplus staff working in the other schools of the Corporate Management. No doubt, the manner in which the petitioner was appointed, namely, the appointment made on the very date on which the post of Secondary Grade Teacher fell vacant upon the promotion of the incumbent, itself shows the undue haste with which the fourth respondent – School appointed the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no mechanism that was available prior to 31.03.2021 for adjusting the surplus staff available in the other schools of the Corporate Management, thereby making appointments to the vacancies. The said mechanism came into force admittedly on 31.03.2021. In the circumstances, this Court is unable to acknowledge the reason assigned in the impugned proceedings. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.10707 of 2026 4. In the light of the above, the only reason assigned in the impugned proceedings that there are surplus Secondary Grade Teachers available in the Corporate Management, which runs the fourth respondent – School, cannot be a ground while considering the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent – School prior to 31.03.2021 and therefore, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained. 5. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 24.07.2024, issued by the third respondent, is hereby quashed. The fourth respondent – School is granted liberty to re-submit the proposal seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in their School with effect from 07.03.2019 to the third respondent. On such re-submission of the proposal by the fourth respondent – School, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders for granting approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent – School, without reference to the surplus Secondary Grade Teachers being available under the Corporate Management, which runs the fourth respondent – School and subject to the fourth respondent – School satisfying the other relevant criteria, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.10707 of 2026 within a period of six weeks from the date of re-submission of the proposal by the fourth respondent – School. 6. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No krk To: 1.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu, St.George Fort, Chennai-9. 2.The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-6. 3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, O/o.the District Elementary Educational Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.10707 of 2026 MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J. krk W.P.(MD) No.10707 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) No.8375 of 2026 15.07.2026 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis