WP/21380/2022 of The Correspondent and Headmaster Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 3 November 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings dated 21.10.2021 issued by the fourth respondent, the Chief Educational Officer, quashing the same and consequently directing the respondents to approve the appointment of Mr.R.John Vincent Paul as Vocational Instructor in General Machinist in the petitioner-School with effect from the date of his appointment, viz., 04.06.2007, and to release his salary and all attendant benefits with effect from the said date.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, as per the staff fixation order dated 21.09.2007, one post of Vocational Instructor was sanctioned and, in the said post, one Mr.Abraham Lincoln was functioning. The said Mr.Abraham Lincoln retired from service on superannuation on 31.05.2007. In the place of the said Mr.Abraham Lincoln, Mr.R.John Vincent Paul was appointed on 04.06.2007, and the proposal seeking approval of the said appointment was forwarded to the respondent authorities on 01.08.2007. Despite the submission of the said proposal, the District Educational Officer, namely, the fifth respondent, initially returned the proposal after a period of eight years. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17195 of 2016, wherein this Court disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the petitioner-School to resubmit the proposal and directing the respondents to consider the same on merits and in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in Chief Educational Officer v. S.Christy, reported in 2016 (1) CWC 481.

2.1. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, when the petitioner submitted the proposal on 15.06.2021, the fourth respondent passed the present impugned order rejecting the approval on the ground that there should not have been any direct appointment to the post of Vocational Instructor and that the vacancy ought to have been filled only by absorbing a part-time Vocational Instructor. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the staff fixation order issued in the year 2007 does not contain any such specific condition. Therefore, the learned counsel would contend that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments in W.A.(MD).No.506 of 2020 dated 24.09.2025, W.A.No.251 of 2026 dated 12.03.2026 and W.P.No.10906 of 2024 dated 08.08.2025.

3. Per contra, the aforesaid contentions were stoutly opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and would contend that, whenever a permanent vacancy arises in the post of Vocational Instructor, the vacant post is automatically taken into a common pool of the State and that, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE) Department, dated 06.01.2009, the Government had taken a policy decision not to continue vocational courses. In view of the aforesaid policy decision, whenever a Vocational Instructor retires, the post has to be surrendered to the Government and brought into the common pool, and the vacancy is to be filled by absorbing a part-time Vocational Instructor. In the present case, prior to the appointment of the candidate, namely, Mr.R.John Vincent Paul, the petitioner had not obtained prior permission, and that the SLP is pending. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order does not warrant interference. In support of his contention, the learned Additional Government Pleader relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).No.532 of 2019 etc. batch dated 09.06.2025.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

5. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.

6. On a careful perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the proposal seeking approval of the appointment of Mr.R.John Vincent Paul was rejected on the ground that, as per G.O.Ms.No.1719 dated 14.09.1978, the Government had taken a policy decision to absorb Vocational Instructors whenever the existing incumbents retired. Though the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend so, he has not substantiated the said stand by producing any Government Order or other decision issued by the Government. Furthermore, the present case pertains to a minority institution. Therefore, once a post is sanctioned, any attempt to regulate the filling up of such a post by way of absorption would amount to interference with the administration of the minority institution, which is constitutionally impermissible.

7. In this regard, it is also relevant to mention that, though the Government had taken a policy decision as early as on 01.04.1990 to absorb part-time Instructors whenever the existing incumbents retired, when the respondent authorities issued the staff fixation order dated 21.09.2007, they sanctioned one post of Vocational Instructor without referring to any such condition that the said post should not be filled up by direct appointment and should be filled only through absorption. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defence raised by the respondents that the post of Vocational Instructor could be filled only by absorbing a part-time Vocational Instructor is merely a self-serving stand, and this Court is unable to find any material supporting the State’s contention.

8. This Court, upon verifying the website of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, could ascertain that the judgment relied by the respondent in State of Tamil Nadu v. Secretary/Correspondent, Setupati Higher Secondary School was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.11.2024 in Civil Appeal No.12310 of 2024. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said judgment, has categorically held that any appointment of a Vocational Instructor made without prior approval is liable to be interfered with and that no such future appointment should be made. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the aforesaid legal position, it has taken a sympathetic view in respect of a Vocational Instructor who had been appointed long before and ultimately held that, notwithstanding the law laid down regarding the illegality of the appointment, the authorities were directed to approve his appointment and release his salary on sympathetic grounds. However, strictly speaking, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court pertains to a non-minority institution, whereas the present Writ Petition concerns a minority institution. Therefore, the legal position laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable stricto sensu to the minority institution.

9. However, taking cue from the sympathetic view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that similar sympathetic consideration may also be extended in the present case. Having regard to the fact that Mr.R.John Vincent Paul was appointed as a Vocational Instructor in the year 2007 and has been serving for nearly 19 years, and may be nearing the age of retirement. In the aforesaid circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that the staff fixation order does not contain any such condition, and considering that Mr.R.John Vincent Paul has been functioning in the said post for more than 19 years, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned rejection order is liable to be interfered with.

10. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE) Department, dated 06.01.2009. On a perusal of the said Government Order, it is evident that the Government had

taken a policy decision not to open any further vocational courses. In the present case, the learned Additional Government Pleader relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD).No.532 of 2019 etc. batch, wherein the Division Bench, relying upon G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE) Department, dated 06.01.2009, observed that, since the Government had taken a policy decision not to continue vocational courses, the posts of Vocational Instructors ceased to exist after 06.01.2009, except in respect of the existing incumbents. For ready reference, the relevant observations made in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:- “17.In respect of individual cases falling within the ambit of the principles considered by this Court in the aforementioned paragraphs, those individuals if they are otherwise eligible and falling within the eligible category, then they are at liberty to approach the authorities. In all other cases where appointments are made to the Vocational Instructors post after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE) Department, dated 06.01.2009, approval of appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

18. It is made clear that if those Vocational Instructors appointed prior to G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE) Department, dated 06.01.2009 are qualified, appointed in the sanctioned post and eligible as per Rules, their proposals are to be considered in accordance with Act and Rules.” According to the aforesaid ratio, the Hon'ble Division Bench has categorically held that, if any appointment had been made prior to 06.01.2009, the same need not be interfered with.

11. In the present case, the appointment of Mr.R.John Vincent Paul was made on 04.06.2007, and the proposal seeking approval of the said appointment was submitted by the petitioner on 01.08.2007. Therefore, though G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (VE) Department, dated 06.01.2009, and the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench relied upon by the respondents are applicable to the subject matter, since the appointment of Mr.R.John Vincent Paul was made on 04.06.2007, i.e., prior to the issuance of the aforesaid Government Order, this Court is of the firm view that the question of enforcing the said Government Order against the petitioner does not arise at all. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned rejection order does not refer to G.O.Ms.No.9 and refers only to the SLP and the policy decision of the Government.

12. At this juncture, as already stated, the SLP does not pertain to a minority institution and relates only to a non-minority institution. In respect of minority institutions, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of School Education v. J.Remila and others, reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 26348, has categorically held that, unless there is a dispute regarding the qualification or eligibility of the appointee, appointment to a sanctioned post cannot be denied on the ground of non-obtaining of prior approval, as the same would be contrary to the constitutional mandate under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

13. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to paragraphs 24 to 26 of the judgment in J.Remila (cited supra), which read as follows:- “24. In the case on hand, admittedly, the 1st respondent has satisfied the educational requirements and the eligibility criteria stipulated by the appellants for holding the post of B.T. Assistant (Social Science) and there is also a vacancy in the said post with the Second respondent Institution. Therefore, the Appellant's interference in the appointments made by the 2nd respondent Minority Institution, is unsustainable. Therefore, according to us, the Judgment relied upon by the appellants reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481, (TMA Pai Foundation case) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

25. The next judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant reported in(2010) 1 SCC 133 (Kolawana Gram Vikas Kendra Vs. State of Gujarat), is also not applicable to the facts of the instant case since in the said case the Government issued a Circular to verify as to whether there was a vacancy as per workload and whether the candidate possessed minimum prescribed qualification and that circular was challenged. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the said Government Circular. But, the Judgment is distinguishable from the facts of the instant case as admittedly, in the case on hand, there is no dispute as regards the qualification and eligibility of the 1st respondent to hold the post of B.T. Assistant (Social Science) in the 2nd respondent Institution. Therefore, the facts of the instant case reported in (2010) 1 SCC 133 and therefore, that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable for the instant case.

26. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India gives linguistic and religious minorities a fundamental right to establish and administer Educational Institution of their choice. These rights are protected by a prohibition against their violation. The prohibition is contained in Article 13 of Constitution which declares that any law in breach of the fundamental rights would be void to the extent of such violation. It is well settled that Article 30(1) cannot be read in a narrow and pedantic sense and being a fundamental right, it should be given its widest amplitude. The width of Article 30(1) cannot be cut down by introducing in it considerations which are destructive to the substance of the right enshrined therein."

14. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.251 of 2026, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the requirement of prior approval stands rejected. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned order rejecting the approval on the ground of an alleged policy decision which is not shown to exist, and the pendency of the SLP, cannot be sustained, particularly when, as already stated, the SLP does not pertain to a minority institution.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned order dated 21.10.2021 is liable to be interfered with and, accordingly, the same is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to approve the appointment of Mr.R.John Vincent Paul as Vocational Instructor in General Machinist in the petitioner-School with effect from the date of his appointment, viz., 04.06.2007, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and to release his salary and all other attendant benefits with effect from the said date.

16. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. 03-11-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV To

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Secretary Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009.

2. The Director of School Education College Road, Chennai- 600 006.

3. The Joint Director of School Education (Vocational) College Road, Chennai- 600 006.

4. The Chief Educational Officer Chief Educational Office, Collectorate Campus, Villupuram District- 605 602.

5. The District Educational Officer District Educational Office, Murungampakkam, Tindivanam- 604 001 Villupuram District.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 21380 of 2022 03-11-2026