1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :26.04.2011 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(md).No.2927 of 2011 M.Austin Jeba Solomon .. Petitioner Versus 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli. 2.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Melaneelithanallur, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Correspondent, T.D.T.A.Primary & Middle Schools, Devarkulam Pastorate, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Oomu.No.1496/A2/2010 dated 22.06.2010 and quash the same and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the date of appointment i.e. 01.04.2009 and confer all the consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneerselvam for M/s. C.S. Associates For Respondents : Mr.N.Elango 1 & 2 Government Advocate For R3 : No Appearance O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the impugned order of the first respondent dated 22.06.2010 rejecting the request of the petitioner to approve his appointment from 01.04.2009. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3.It is the case of the petitioner that he has acquired Diploma in Teacher Education and fully qualified to be appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher. The third respondent management selected and appointed him as Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.04.2009 in the transfer vacancy of one Mrs.S.Uma and posted at TDTA Elementary School, Kurukkalpatti. When https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the same has been forwarded to the respondents 1 & 2, the first respondent rejected the proposal. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. 4.In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.820 of 2008 dated 31.01.2008 has observed as follows: “4.In this case, there is no doubt that the third respondent school committee has appointed the petitioner as against an existing vacancy to a sanctioned post. It may be true that there are surplus teachers working in other schools, which are run by the same management. But, that cannot be a ground to reject the approval of appointment of the petitioner. 5.When an identical issue came up before this Court in W.P.No.10350 of 2006 by order dated 08.12.2006, this Court has held as follows: “7.The rejection of approval of similar teachers on the ground that the management in which the petitioners were appointed were having excess teachers and the petitioners' appointments cannot be approved unless the excess teachers are deployed to a needy vacancy was considered by this Court in the order made in W.P.No.4372 of 2006, by order dated 01.09.2006, wherein, this Court repelled such stand taken by the respondents. 8.In view of the said settled position, there is no justification to deny the approval sought for by the petitioners, since the petitioners were appointed in the sanctioned vacancies and the schools in which the petitioners were appointed are eligible to retain the said posts and the petitioners are fully qualified for being appointed in the said posts. 9.Applying the said principles to the facts of this case, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is set aside and the first respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the petitioners from the date of their respective appointments with salary and other benefits. The first respondent shall pass orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 6.Following the said order of this Court, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 17.12.2007 is set aside with a direction to the first respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the date of the petitioner's appointment with salary and other benefits. The first respondent shall pass necessary orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Mps are closed.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5.Considering the above facts and circumstances and also considering the orders passed by the Court referred to above, the impugned order of the first respondent dated 22.06.2010 is liable to be set aside and accordingly is set aside. 6.With the above observation, the writ petition stands allowed. The first respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the date of his appointment with all attendant benefits. The said exercise should be carried out by the first respondent within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected M.P.No.2 of 2011 is closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli. 2.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Melaneelithanallur, Tirunelveli District. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.15515 + 1 cc to M/s.C.S.Associates, SR No.15024 W.P.(MD)No.2927 of 2011 26.04.2011 Vs RJ/7.6.11 3p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/