WP/14834/2013 of I.VASANTHA KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA on 18 September 2026

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the third respondent. Notice to the fourth respondent remained unserved.

2. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is that he has the required educational qualification of B.A (English) and M.P.Ed; that he is fully eligible to be appointed as a physical education teacher in the third respondent school, which is one of the Government Aided Schools run under the second respondent; that during the year 2010, one R.Kasthuri, who was working in the sanctioned post of physical education teacher in the third respondent school, had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.08.2010; and that the third respondent school had appointed him against the said vacancy with effect from 11.10.2010; and that the third respondent had sent a proposal to the second respondent dated 06.10.2010 seeking approval of his appointment to the said post.

3. Petitioner contended that the aforesaid proposal sent by the third respondent has been kept pending with the second respondent for over three years; that in the mean time, he had been working in the post of physical education teacher in the third respondent school; that he has been repeatedly making representations and following up the matter with the second respondent for according approval to his appointment; and that despite his follow up, the second respondent did not issue orders according approval of his appointment as physical education teacher in the third respondent school, against the sanctioned post vacancy.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that while his appointment from October 2010 was pending consideration with the second respondent, the second respondent to his shock and surprise, had redeployed the fourth respondent to the third respondent school by the impugned order dated 09.05.2013, to work in the vacant post of physical education teacher, ignoring the fact that he has been working in the said vacancy since, October 2010.

5. Petitioner further contended that the second respondent, by the impugned proceedings, had redeployed the fourth respondent to the third respondent school on the ground that one Valluvar Government Aided High School, Solai Nagar, Puducherry had been closed from the academic year 2012- 2013 and the teachers in the said school were required to be redeployed to various schools against the existing vacancies; and that keeping the post of physical education teacher in the third respondent school vacant from the year 2010, the second respondent could not have redeployed the fourth respondent against the existing vacancy in the third respondent school, which was solely on account of the inaction of the second respondent in considering the proposal sent by the third respondent dated 06.10.2010.

6. Petitioner also contend that since, not according approval for his appointment from October 2010 was solely on account of the inaction of the second respondent in considering the proposal sent by the third respondent dated 06.10.2010, the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent cannot be sustained and the second respondent is required to approve his appointment with effect from 11.10.2010 against the sanctioned vacancy by treating himself as regularly appointed and he is entitled to payment of arrears of salary from 06.10.2010.

7. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the second and third respondents.

8. The second respondent by the counter affidavit contended that the third respondent school is one of the 35 Government Aided Private Schools functioning in the Union Territory of Puducherry; that the Government of Puducherry through the Directorate of School Education has been releasing grant- in-aid every year as per Rule 33 (1) of Pondicherry School Education Rules, 1996, to meet the expenses relating to the salary of employees, pension and terminal benefits to the retired employees appointed under the grant-in-aid stream; that Tmt.R.Kasthuri, physical education teacher of the third respondent school was drawing salary under the grant-in-aid scheme, that Tmt.R.KSathuri, on attaining the age of superannuation had retired from service and the post fell vacant from 01.09.2010 onwards.

9. The second respondent further contended that the second respondent did not accord any approval for engaging the services of the petitioner or any other person on a consolidated pay basis; that consequent to the closure of one of the Government Aided Schools viz., Valluvar Government Aided High School, Solai Nagar, Puducherry, the teaching and non-teaching staff, who had worked in the said school were redeployed to other Government Aided Schools vide order dated 09.05.2013; that under the said order, the fourth respondent was redeployed to the third respondent school in order to fill up the vacancy; and that all the redeployed employees had joined duty in the respective schools.

10. The second respondent by the counter affidavit further contended that as per norms, one physical education teacher has to handle a minimum of 24

physical education classes and a maximum of 30 physical education classes in a week; that as per the time table of the schools, there are no physical education classes for Standards I to V; that for the Standards VI to X, each section should have two physical education classes in a week; that insofar as the third respondent school is concerned, there are 9 sections i.e., one section in Standard VI and two sections from Standards VII to X; that the total number of physical education classes that could be handled as per the timetable comes to 18 classes in a week, which is much less than minimum number of classes handled by the physical education teacher; and thus, the respondents redeployed the fourth respondent to the solitary post of physical education teacher, which had fallen vacant on the retirement of the earlier physical education teacher namely Tmt.R.Kasthuri.

11. The second respondent by the counter affidavit also contended that since, Valluvar Government Aided High School, Solai Nagar, Puducherry was closed with effect from the academic year 2013 -2014 vide order dated 12.04.2013, the respondents, as per Rule 19 (1) of the Pondicherry School Education Rules, redeployed the teaching and non-teaching employees of the closed school to other Government Aided Schools; that it is for the said reason that the fourth respondent was redeployed to work in the third respondent school; that the fourth respondent, who was working earlier in the Valluvar Government Aided High School, on being redeployed to the third respondent, had joined duty and rendered her service in the School till her retirement.

12. Contending as above, the second respondent seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

13. The third respondent by the counter affidavit contended that the second respondent did not grant approval for the appointment of the petitioner in the third respondent school under grant-in-aid stream and as such, the petitioner is not connected with the respondents in any manner.

14. The third respondent by the counter affidavit further contended that since, the Government of Puducherry is granting 95% of the salary of teachers and other employees, due to the non-grant of aid by the Government for a long time, the third respondent did not fill up the vacancy called as functional post due to retirement, etc.,; that on the retirement of Mrs.R.Kasthuri, who was working as physical education teacher in the third respondent school and drawing salary under the grant-in-aid and the post fell vacant from 01.09.2010 onwards.

15. The third respondent by the counter affidavit further contended that on closure of Valluvar Government Aided High School with effect from the academic year 2012-2013 vide second respondent's order dated 12.04.2013, the second respondent redeployed the teaching and non-teaching staff of the said school to various other schools; that the second respondent redeployed the fourth respondent to work in the third respondent school; and that the fourth respondent, on being redeployed, had joined the service in the third respondent school and had rendered her service till her retirement.

16. The third respondent by the counter affidavit also contended that the second respondent by his proceedings having clearly stated that the redeployment would not affect the opportunity of the candidate who was engaged as physical education teacher on consolidated pay basis at the time of his absorption under grant-in-aid scheme, the petitioner cannot question the action of the second respondent in redeploying the fourth respondent to work in the third respondent school.

17. The third respondent further contended that the said respondent has no role in the process of approval under grant-in-aid scheme and the same rests

with the second respondent.

18. Contending as above, the third respondent seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

19. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit of the second respondent, wherein the petitioner contended that the respondent did not deny the fact that there is a regular vacancy in the post of the physical education teacher in the third respondent school pursuant to the retirement of one Tmt.R.Kasthuri; that the school is fully eligible to fill up the same; that he has been appointed in the said post after due process of selection and after appointment he has been working from the year 2010; that first and second respondents are sleeping over the approval sought for by the third respondent; that he possessed the required qualification and was aged 27 years when he was appointed and as such, his appointment is fully valid and correct as per the recruitment rules; that the second respondent had suppressed the fact of passing the order dated 01.07.2013 specifying that the redeployment of the fourth respondent to the third respondent school was only in addition to the existing sanctioned strength of physical education teacher in the school till her retirement; that the redeployment would not affect the opportunity of the candidate who was engaged as physical education teacher on consolidated pay basis at the time of absorption under grant-in-aid; that there are three non-minority aided schools in Puducherry including the third respondent school; that there is a vacancy for a physical education teacher in one of the Government Aided Higher Secondary School situated at Bahour in which the fourth respondent could have been redeployed; that similarly, one more vacancy is also there in Wiseman English Higher Secondary School, Mudaliarpet, wherein also the fourth respondent could be accommodated; that he was recruited by the third respondent on a permanent basis to be accommodated against the aided post; that for the said reason, the proposal was sent immediately to the second respondent; that the second respondent, in order to avoid payment to aided school teachers, did not accord approval and kept the proposal pending for three years; that the second respondent, by not performing the statutory duty till the year 2013, had redeployed the fourth respondent on the closure of the Valluvar Government Aided High School from the academic year 2012-2013, to contend that the said vacancy is filled up; and that he cannot be sent out or denied regular appointment.

20. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

21. Though the petitioner claims that he having been appointed against the sanctioned post which had fallen vacant on the retirement of the teacher working in the said post, a perusal of the proceedings dated 11.10.2010, by which the petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of physical education teacher, would clearly show that the third respondent, while issuing the aforesaid appointment order, had clearly stated that the petitioner being appointed in the post of “non-grant physical education teacher”. The third respondent, while issuing the aforesaid appointment order, though had mentioned that the petitioner was being appointed in place of Mrs.Kasthuri, who superannuated on 31.08.2010, had mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner was temporary and such appointment is a non-grant post. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim that his appointment to be a regular appointment against a sanctioned vacancy.

22. It is also pertinent to note that even before the third respondent issued the proceedings by which the petitioner was appointed temporarily, by mentioning such appointment is against a non-grant post, the third respondent, by his letter dated 06.10.2010 addressed to the second respondent, had sought for according permission to appoint the petitioner in the existing vacancy. The seeking of permission in advance only goes to show that the third respondent could not have appointed the petitioner on a permanent basis against the sanctioned vacancy without the prior approval/permission from the second respondent, for the petitioner to claim that his appointment ought to have been approved by the second respondent with effect from 11.10.2010.

23. Further, it is also to be noted that the petitioner, while claiming as having been appointed against a sanctioned post which had fallen vacant on account of the retirement of the teacher, who was working in the said sanctioned post, did not take any steps seeking for regularization of his service from the date of he joining the services of the third respondent nor has placed any material before this Court of following up with the second respondent either by himself or the third respondent for according approval to its proposal dated 06.10.2010 for the appointment of the petitioner.

24. In absence of neither the petitioner nor the third respondent placing any material before this Court to show that despite either the petitioner or the third respondent following up with the second respondent for according of approval to fill up the vacancy, and on the contrary the third respondent having taken a stand that due to non-gratuity of approval by the second respondent, the third respondent did not fill up the vacancy as functional post, the claim of the petitioner that the second respondent failed to perform the statutory duties till the year 2013 does not appeal to this Court for being accepted, as the petitioner is also equally lethargic in ascertaining his rights.

25. On the other hand, it is only when the third respondent redeployed the fourth respondent to the third respondent school on the closure of one of the Government aided schools wherein the fourth respondent was working, the petitioner felt aggrieved and approached this Court, assailing the action of the second respondent in redeploying the fourth respondent against the sanctioned post of physical education teacher, which had fallen vacant on 31.08.2010 and not at any time before. This only goes to show that the petitioner from 11.10.2010 did not feel aggrieved for being appointed on temporary basis against the non-sanctioned post in spite of more than 2 ½ years from the date of his appointment having passed-by.

26. Further, the second respondent, in his memorandum, having stated that the redeployment would not affect the opportunity of the candidate, who was engaged as physical education teacher on a consolidated pay basis at the time of his absorption against grant-in-aid post, the petitioner, instead of questioning the action of the second respondent in absorbing him against the grant-in-aid post, by showing that he having acquired the requisite eligibility for being absorbed against the grant-in-aid post, in the considered view of this Court cannot lay challenge the redeployment of the fourth respondent, who was already working in an aided post in a Government Aided School.

27. Thus, this Court is of the view that the challenge in the present writ petition to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent is devoid of merit.

28. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to costs. 18.09.2026 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No dh To

1. Union of India, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Government of Union Territory of Puducherry, Puducherry.

2. The Director of School Education, Puducherry.

3. The Correspondent, Societe Progressiste High School, No.12, Kalathiswaran Koil Street, Puducherry – 605 001.

T. VINOD KUMAR

, J.

dh Pre-delivery order made in W.P.No.14834 of 2013 18.09.2026