| |
CDJ 2025 MHC 7683
|
| Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Case No : W.A.No. 3585 of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED |
| Parties : The Director of Elementary Education Chennai & Others Versus Sri Shanmugananda Aided Primary School Rep. By its Manager, Dr. Kotteswaran. |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Appellants: S. Yashwanth, Additional Government Pleader. For the Respondent: S.N. Ravichandran, Advocate. |
| Date of Judgment : 01-12-2025 |
| Head Note :- |
| Letters Patent - Clause 15 - |
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
2. Catch Words:
- Appointment
- Surplus Teacher
- Teacher‑People Ratio
- Intra‑Court Appeal
- Writ Petition
3. Summary:
The Education Department appealed the order of the Writ Court dated 15‑11‑2023, which had directed the appointment of a secondary‑grade teacher in an aided primary school. The Department argued that the appointment had already been approved by a communication dated 21‑06‑2024 from the District Education Officer. The Court noted that the school is a two‑teacher institution, so the ground of “surplus teacher” is untenable. It observed that even if a surplus were found, the department could redeploy the teacher, but the appointment had already been sanctioned. Consequently, there was no basis to disturb the Writ Court’s order.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P.No.13760 of 2021 dated 15.11.2023.)
R. Suresh Kumar, J.
1. This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 15.11.2023 made in W.P.No.13760 of 2021.
2. The respondent was the writ petitioner. It is an Aided recognized Primary School, who appointed a Secondary Grade Teacher in the School in the sanctioned vacancy, which was not approved despite a request having been made in this regard. Therefore, challenging the said order of rejection made in this regard by the District Educational Officer, the School has approached the Writ Court by filing the said writ petition seeking to quash the same and to approve the appointment of the Teacher called one R.Elakkiya as Secondary Grade Teacher at the writ petitioner School with effect from 17.02.2021. The said writ petition, in fact, was allowed by the learned Judge through the order impugned.
3. Though as against the order impugned, the present intra-Court appeal has been directed at the instance of the appellant Education Department, today, when the writ appeal is taken up for hearing at the admission stage, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would submit that, during the interregnum, that is before moving this writ appeal, the order passed by the Writ Court dated 15.11.2023 has been complied with and in support of his contention, he has produced a communication issued by the second appellant herein, that is the District Education Officer of Primary Education dated 21.06.2024, thereby, the appointment made to the Teacher concerned with effect from 17.02.2021 has been approved.
4. Though an attempt has been made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants to still assail the order which is impugned herein, we are not impressed with the same for the reason that, the original rejection order that has been made for approving the appointment of the Teacher concerned was only on the ground of surplus Teacher, but, it is brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent School that, it was only a two Teacher School, therefore, the question of any excess Teacher theory does not arise in this case.
5. Assuming that if any excess Teacher is found by the appellant Department on the basis of the Teacher-People ratio, it is always open to the Department to find out such excess Teacher and redeploy the cocnerned Teacher to the needy School. That kind of guidelines have already been issued by a number of orders passed by this Court, based on which, mandatory guidelines also have been issued by the Government, which is already in vogue.
6. When that being the position, since the only reason cited for not approving the Teacher itself is no more available, since the school itself is a two Teacher School and the appointment is now approved by the order dated 21.06.2024, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned.
7. As a result of which, the appeal fails and hence it is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.29503 of 2025 is closed.
|
| |
