WA/1035/2024 of THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU Vs G.MUNUSAMY on 25 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the Writ Order dated 18.04.2022 passed in W.P. No. 17594 of 2015. State preferred the present Intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. First Respondent filed a writ petition seeking approval of appointment as Office Assistant with effect from his date of initial appointment on 03.01.2005. Since the writ petition was allowed, State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellant would mainly contend that first respondent was appointed

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 05:57:38 pm )

2026:MHC:4085 WA No. 1035 of 2024

on 03.01.2005 during the ban period. Correspondent of St. Peter's Higher Secondary School / Aided School appointed the first respondent. Thus, appointment made during the Government ban period cannot be approved. On lifting of ban for appointment of non-teaching staff in Aided Schools, through G.O.Ms.No.115, School Education (D2) Department, dated 30.05.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.189, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.07.2009, permission to fill up the Office Assistant post in the St. Peter's Higher Secondary School was made through Proceedings, dated 04.01.2010 and the appointment of first respondent was approved by the competent educational authority through Proceedings, dated 24.12.2010 with effect from 01.06.2009. Therefore, on lifting of the ban, approval of appointment was granted in favour of the first respondent. In respect of the ban period, Government cannot pay salary / grant-in-aid to the management.

4. Dr.Father Xavier Arun Raj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent would oppose by stating that it is a sanctioned post. An aided management school is empowered to appoint persons in a sanctioned post. Admittedly, first respondent was appointed in a sanctioned post. Therefore, appointment ought to have been approved from the date of initial appointment. He would rely on the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge in the writ order, in the case of

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 05:57:38 pm )

2026:MHC:4085 WA No. 1035 of 2024

Thiruvalluvar Higher Secondary School Vs. Government of India, Department of Education and Others1.

5. This Court has carefully gone through the said judgment. The legal principle, power of the Government to impose a ban on public appointments and the effect of such appointments, and about the irregular or illegal appointments made during the ban period, have not been considered, adjudicated or any findings have been given. Therefore, the said judgment is to be confined only to the facts of the said case and need not be followed as a precedent to grant the relief of retrospective approval of appointment made during the ban period.

6. Whenever a judgment is to be considered as a precedent by the Courts, it is to be borne in mind whether the legal principles are settled by the Court. Reliefs granted considering certain facts of the case per se cannot be relied upon as a precedent for securing relief in a routine manner. The question as to when a judgment becomes a binding legal precedent has been elaborately considered by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi and Others2. 1 2008 (7) CTC 648 2 2017 (16) SCC 680

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 05:57:38 pm )

2026:MHC:4085 WA No. 1035 of 2024

7. Therefore, the Courts are expected to consider while following a particular judgment as a precedent, whether legal principles are settled in the said judgment, and relief granted based on factual details or making certain general findings need not be followed as a precedent. In the event of adopting such judgment as a precedent, it may result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the Courts are expected to be cautious while following certain judgments as legal precedents.

8. In the present case, admittedly the Government of Tamil Nadu imposed a ban with effect from 29.11.2001 to 07.02.2006 for making appointments in all departments. However, for non-teaching staff in aided schools, the ban was lifted through G.O.Ms.No.115, School Education (D2) Department, dated 30.05.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.189, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.07.2009. Therefore, the private management schools appointing persons as non-teaching staff during the ban period cannot claim Government salary or the approval for the said period. In the present case, appointment of approval was granted on lifting of the ban by the Government with effect from 01.06.2009 and grant-in-aid also has been released. Therefore, any appointment made during the ban period, management has to pay the salary to the employee.

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 05:57:38 pm )

2026:MHC:4085 WA No. 1035 of 2024

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent would submit that meagre salary has been paid to the employee. However, it is the responsibility of the management to look after the administration, as they are empowered to administer the institution. However, whenever grant-in-aid from the Government is to be released, Government regulations are to be followed. Ban on appointments is a policy decision taken by the Government and subsequently, it was lifted. On lifting, the benefit of approval of appointment is extended. Thus, there is no irregularity in respect of the actions initiated by the appellants in the present case.

10. In view of the discussions in the aforementioned paragraphs, the writ order dated 18.04.2022 made in WP No.17594 of 2015 is set aside. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 25-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 05:57:38 pm )

2026:MHC:4085 WA No. 1035 of 2024

To

1. The Correspondent St.Peters Higher Secondary School, Royapuram, Chennai-13

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 05:57:38 pm )

2026:MHC:4085 WA No. 1035 of 2024

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. GD WA No. 1035 of 2024 25-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 05:57:38 pm )