A.Santhosamary v. The Chief Educational Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 14/06/2024
CORAM
The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA and WMP(MD) No.11259 of 2024 A.Santhosamary ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai-625 002.
2. The Correspondent, C.S.I.High School, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.
... Respondents PRAYER :-. Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.8346/A5/2023, dated 21.09.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the cadre of BT Assistant (Science) in the 2nd respondent school with effect from 07.06.2018 with all monetary benefits and arrears of salary.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sathish Babu For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan Government Advocate 1/5
ORDER
By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Mr.N.Sathish Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Amjad Khan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the first respondent dated 21.09.2023 rejecting the approval of her appointment as BT Assistant (science) at the second respondent school.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the post for which the petitioner was appointed was a sanctioned post, approval has not been given so far and hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the second respondent School is a corporate management and as per the judgment of 2/5
this Court in WA(MD) NO.76/2019 dated 24.09.2020 only if the corporate management identifies all the surplus posts under the same corporate management in all categories and a list is given, then, the respondent authorities can grant approval to fresh appointments after deploying the surplus posts so shown by the corporate management.
6. Since the 2nd respondent has not done the said exercise so far, the first respondent is not able to appraise the actual situation with regard to availability of surplus posts under the 2nd respondent management.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to give representation to the second respondent to do the needful in accordance with law and especially as per the guidelines laid down under 95(u) of the judgment dated 24.09.2020 in WA(MD) NO.76/2019 and thereafter, renew her proposal seeking any fresh order. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
14.06.2024 RR 3/5
TO
1. The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai-625 002.
4/5
R.N.MANJULA,J RR
ORDER
IN WP(MD) No.12650 of 2024 Date : 14/06/2024 5/5