1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.01.2011 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD) No.16 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 1.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. 3.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin (Town) Tuticorin District. ... Appellants Vs. 1.N.Regi Mallika 2.The Correspondent, TDTA Primary & Middle School, Shanmugapuram, Tuticorin – 628 002 ... Respondents PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 20.08.2010 in W.P.(MD) No.9137 of 2008 on the file of this Court. WP(MD)No.9137/2008:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the Second respondent District Elementary Educational Officer in Na.Ka.No.7537/A4/2005, dated 22.11.2005 quash the same and further direct the respondents to approve forthwith the appointment of the Petitioner as Sewing Mistress in the fourth respondent School and sanction and disburse the salary, allowances and other attendant benefits with effects from the date of appointment viz, 15.7.2004. For Appellants : Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Special Government Pleader. For 1st Respondent : Mr.Issac Mohanlal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 JUDGMENT N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J. This writ appeal is directed against the order made in W.P (MD)No.9137 of 2008, dated 20.08.2010 wherein the first respondent herein challenged the order rejecting the approval order passed by the District Elementary Educational Officer in his proceedings dated 22.11.2005 and prayed for a direction to approve the appointment of the first respondent as Sewing Mistress in the second respondent school and sanction and disburse the salary and other allowances with effect from 15.07.2004. 2.It is the case of the first respondent that she was appointed as Sewing Mistress from 15.07.2004 in the second respondent Aided minority school in a sanctioned post. The staff fixation order given to the second respondent school for the academic year 2004-2005 clearly states that the school is sanctioned with one Headmaster, 7 secondary grade teacher posts and 3 special teachers. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that one of the special teacher post (Sewing) became vacant and in the said vacancy, the first respondent was appointed from 15.07.2004 and she is serving in the second respondent school all these years. Learned counsel for the first respondent also submitted that the said sanctioned post is in existence and the appellants neither declared the said post as surplus nor resume the post till date from the second respondent school. To prove the availability of the post, the staff fixation order of the school is filed. The reasons stated by the District Elementary Educational Officer for rejecting the request for approval was that there is reduction of student strength. The very same issue was considered by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1263 of 2001 by order dated 22.01.2004 wherein this Court has held that if a person is appointed in a sanctioned post the approval cannot be rejected and if there is fall in strength and the post become surplus after granting approval to the post the said teacher along with post could be transferred/deployed to a needy school. The same is the view taken by the learned single Judge in this case by relying upon the various other judgments. 4.Learned counsel for the first respondent also submitted that an identical case was allowed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.7218 of 2008 by order dated 04.08.2009 and without filing an appeal against the said order, the said order was implemented by the very same second appellant in this appeal by order dated 18.09.2009. 5.The said fact is also not disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants. 6.In the light of the Division Bench decision stated supra as well as the availability of the post where the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 respondent is appointed in the second respondent school from the year 2004-2005, there cannot be any impediment to approve the appointment of the first respondent from 15.07.2004 and disburse her salary and other benefits if she is found qualified. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is dismissed and the order of the learned single Judge is directed to be complied with by the appellants within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(W) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. 3.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin (Town) Tuticorin District. +One Cc to Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, Advocate, SR.No.3167 sms rl/5c – 24.2.2011 W.A.(MD) No.16 of 2011 25.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/