The State Of Tamil Nadu v. The Correspondent
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 28.04.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 03.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.A(MD)No.709 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.4955 of 2025 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District.
4.The District Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
... Appellants Vs.
The Correspondent, St.Mary's Higher Secondary School, Colachel-629 251, Kanyakumari District.
... Respondent 1/15
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.15356 of 2024, dated 10.07.2024. For Appellants :Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For Respondent :M/s.A.Amala ***
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J.) The present writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 10.07.2024, passed in W.P.(MD)No.15356 of 2024.
2. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 12.09.2023 and consequential proceedings, dated Nil.02.2024 and to direct the respondents to approve the appointment of K.Michael Herina Sidhu as P.G. Assistant (Chemistry) in the petitioner's school with effect from 25.01.2023 and to disburse grant in aid towards salary and allowances.
3. The brief facts are that the writ petitioner is a unit of a private aided minority corporate management. The petitioner school had appointed one K.Michael Herina Sidhu as P.G. Assistant (Chemistry) with effect from 2/15
25.01.2023 in the promotion vacancy of one A.Aunti Pushpa Ranita and the approval of appointment was submitted to the respondents but the same was returned stating the post has become surplus for the academic year 2022-2023. The contention of the petitioner school is that as on the date of appointment, two P.G. Assistants (Chemistry) were very much available but subsequently, on 14.02.2023, another proceeding has been issued rendering 1 out 2 P.G. Assistants (Chemistry) as surplus. The reduction of staff strength was challenged in W.P. (MD)No.19299 of 2023. The contention of the petitioner school is that as far as the Higher Secondary Schools are concerned, the rules of surplus in fixing the Teachers Strength is not in accordance to the strength of the students.
The criteria to be taken for sanctioning the teachers is based on the availability of number of sections and groups. The petitioner school has six groups and one group for both English and Tamil medium. As per G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education Department, dated 29.12.1997, the petitioner school can have two P.G. Assistants (Chemistry). But in the year 2022, one P.G. Assistant (Chemistry) is rendered as surplus and the same is illegal. The writ petitioner school relied on the judgment, dated 25.03.2023, passed in W.A.(MD)No.1155 of 2020. Even by adopting the guidelines of G.O.Ms.No.
unreasonable. Therefore, while reconsidering the staff fixation, the respondents in the writ petition altered the number of teachers, vide proceedings, dated 14.02.2023, is not in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.525. Hence, the writ petition was filed.
4. After hearing the submissions on either side, the Writ Court held when the school is having six groups, then the school is entitled to two P.G. Assistants (Chemistry) as per G.O.Ms.No.525. Therefore, the rejection of the proposal without properly appreciating the rules and the Government orders is liable to the set aside. Hence, the Writ Court allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ appeal is preferred by the State.
5. The primary contention of the appellants is that the surplus issue was considered elaborately in W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019, vide order, dated 31.03.2021, wherein the Division Bench has held that any appointment made after passing of the order in W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2009, approval can be granted after making deployment of the surplus teachers. When the deployment orders were under process, the present appointment was made by the school. Had the appointment is not made, then the said vacancy would be available to deploy the teacher from the 4/15
list of surplus teachers. Hence, the same is against the order passed by the Division Bench. It is seen in the present case the writ petitioner school appointed the teacher with effect from 25.01.2023 and the Division Bench order was passed on 31.03.2021. The appellants were undertaking the huge exercise of deploying the surplus teachers after passing the order in W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019. Further, the Government has also preferred SLP for a limited purpose and during that time the deployment was kept in abeyance for a brief period. Therefore, the appellants are right in stating that if the promotion vacancy is available, then one of the surplus teachers would have been accommodated in the said vacancy rather than appointing a new teacher. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appointment of P.G. Assistant (Chemistry) in the petitioner school, even prior to deployment is against the order passed in W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019.
6. The above finding is rendered if the vacancy is available. However, the further contention of the appellant is that the said post which the school has appointed one K.Michael Herina Sidhu is a surplus post which has been declared as surplus post by the subsequent proceeding dated 14.02.2023. Hence the petitioner school is not entitled to appoint any person in the said vacancy, which means the vacancy itself not available. But the school vehemently opposed the 5/15
said contention and submitted the said post is not the surplus post, the appellants are incorrect in fixing the said post as surplus in the staff fixation order. In order to consider the submissions of either parties, the staff fixation order ought to be analysed by referring to G.O.Ms.No.525.
7. The contention of the school is that as far as the Higher Secondary Schools are concerned, the rules of surplus in fixing the Teacher Strength are not in accordance to the strength of the students. The criteria to be taken for sanctioning the teachers is based on the availability of number of groups. This Court is of the considered opinion that the said contention is partially true as far as groups are concerned. If the school is having two science groups i.e. i. Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology - first group ii. Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology - science group then the school is entitled to six P.G. Assistants as per G.O.Ms.No.525. As per Full Bench judgment in the case of the Director of Elementary Education and others Vs. Vigila and others reported in 2006 5 CTC 385, the school is entitled to six P.G. Assistants which is inclusive of Headmaster. In the present case the school is having, i. one P.G. Headmaster, ii. one P.G. Assistant (Maths), 6/15
iii. one P.G. Assistant (Physics), iv.one P.G. Assistant (Chemistry), v. one P.G. Assistant (Botany), vi. one P.G. Assistant (Zoology) Therefore, the school is having totally six P.G. Assistants, which is as per G.O.Ms.No.525 and as per the judgment of Vigila's case.
8. If the school is in need of additional teacher, now the students' strength ought to be taken into account. That is why this Court observed in the preceding paragraph that the contention of the petitioner school is partially true. As per G.O.Ms.No.525 under clause IV, sub clause (c), it is stated that "regarding bifurcation of a standard, additional section will be formed when the strength exceeds 60 and so on in the slab of 40 as in the of High Schools". This means generally, for every 40 students a teacher is allotted. Hence, if the students' strength in 11th standard is 40 students, then the 11th standard would be granted one teacher. If the 11th standard is having 50 students, then also only one teacher would be allotted. However, if in 11th standard the student strength exceeds 60 then the second P.G. Assistant teacher would be allotted. In the present case, as per the staff fixation order 2022-2023 the students' strength in Tamil Medium is as under:
7/15
12th standard Tamil Medium: 38 (Maths only 16) ii. Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology - science group 11th standard Tamil Medium: 38 (Maths only 16) i. Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology - first group 11th standard Tamil Medium: 22 11th standard Tamil Medium: 29 Therefore, the bifurcation of standard and granting additional section as stated in clause IV sub clause (c) does not arise when the strength is below 40 students.
9. However, the petitioner school is relying on the students' strength of English Medium also. It is settled issue that the strength of English Medium cannot be taken while fixing staff fixation order. As far as English Medium is concerned the schools were permitted to carve an English Medium section from the existing Tamil Medium and were permitted to utilize the serve of the existing teacher who is already serving in Tamil Medium section as per G.O.Ms.No.148 School Education [SE6 (1)] Department dated 20.07.2018. By granting such permission the school was strictly directed that they should not make the government incur additional financial burden. From this it is evident that the new post was not granted to the English Medium section but the schools were permitted to utilize the service from the exiting teacher working in Tamil Medium section. The relevant portion of the G.O.Ms.No.148 School Education [SE6 (1)] Department dated 20.07.2018 is extracted hereunder: 8/15
9/15
10/15
11/15
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the school is already granted six P.G. Assistant teachers as per G.O.Ms.No.525 and there is no infirmity in declining the approval for additional teacher, which there is no strength of students in Tamil Medium.
10. The next contention of the school is that the staff fixation order was issued on 02.01.2023 wherein the school was granted two P.G. Assistant (Chemistry), hence based on the same the said K.Michael Herina Sidhu was appointed. But on 14.02.2023 a revised staff fixation order was issued wherein the school was granted only one P.G. Assistant (Chemistry), which is subsequent hence the same will not affect the school continuing with the said teacher. This Court is of the considered such contention of the petitioner school cannot be accepted. The revised order was issued within a period of 42 days. Infact this is a classic case where prior permission is necessary.
If the school was insisted to take prior permission before appointment, then the appellant would have scrutinized the strength of the school and would have declined permission to appoint any new teacher in the surplus vacancy. Therefore, it is time to rethink regarding the issue of obtaining prior permission even in minority schools. Further, it is seen that within 20 days of appointment, the revised staff fixation was ordered.
mistake committed by the officials, the Government cannot suffer by paying salary to a teacher who is be appointed in a surplus vacancy. Already the Government is burdened with paying salary in crores to surplus teachers and one more cannot be added.
11. The Writ Court has not considered the number of students studying in 11th and 12th standards in Tamil medium, but simply taken the total strength along with English Medium and had come to the conclusion. Therefore, the order passed by the Writ Court is erroneous and is liable to the set aside and accordingly set aside.
12. For the reasons stated supra, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.] 03.06.2025 Index : Yes / No Tmg 13/15
To:
1.The Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District.
4.The District Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
14/15
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and S.SRIMATHY, J.
Tmg W.A(MD)No.709 of 2025 03.06.2025 15/15