The Director of School Educa vs S Deepa

Court
Madras High Court

WA(MD) No. 1669 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE P.MURUGAN
WA(MD) No. 1669 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010098282026}
and CMP(MD)No.14217 of 2026
1. The Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of the School Education,
College Road, D.P.I. Complex,
Chennai
2. The District Educational Officer,
Office of the District Educational Officer,
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
3. The Block Educational Officer,
Reddiarpatti, Alangulam,Tenkasi District.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. S Deepa
2. The Correspondent,
T.D.T.A. Primary and Middle School,
Reddiarpatti, Alangulam,
Tenkasi District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against
the order dated 23-10-2025 passed in W.P(MD)No.27990 of 2025.
__________
Page  1  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1669 of 2026
For Appellant(s): Mr.S.I.Muthiah, Additional
Government Pleader
For Respondent(s): Mr.N. Sathishwaran for R1
Mr.G.R.Bala Kumar for R2
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN J.)
The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated
23.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.27990 of
2025.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:
The first respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade
Teacher in the second respondent school on 01.03.2018. When the
proposal seeking approval of the said appointment was submitted by the
second respondent school, the same was returned by the authorities on the
ground that there were surplus teachers in the school under the corporate
management. Challenging the said order of return, the second respondent
school filed W.P.(MD)No.16175 of 2021. By order dated 02.09.2022,
this Court set aside the order returning the proposal and directed the
authorities to approve the appointment of the first respondent with effect
from the date of her original appointment, namely, 01.03.2018. However,
by proceedings dated 09.07.2024, the second appellant approved the
__________
Page  2  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1669 of 2026
appointment of the first respondent only with effect from 20.04.2023,
being the date on which the corporate management of the second
respondent school deployed the surplus teachers within its management.
Aggrieved by the restriction of the approval to the aforesaid date, the first
respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(MD)No.27990 of 2025.
The learned Single Judge, by order dated 23.10.2025, set aside the
impugned proceedings and directed the authorities to approve the
appointment of the first respondent with effect from 01.03.2018.
Challenging the said order, the Education Department has preferred the
present writ appeal.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants submitted that, though the first respondent was appointed on
01.03.2018, the proposal seeking approval of her appointment was
submitted only after a delay of one year. During the relevant period, the
issue relating to the deployment of surplus teachers under corporate
managements was pending consideration before this Court in
W.A(MD)No.76 of 2019, etc. batch dated 31.03.2021 (The Secretary to
Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education
Department, Chennai and Others v. Iruthaya Amali and Another) . The
learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the
__________
Page  3  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1669 of 2026
appellants were required to take a decision on the proposal subject to the
outcome of the aforesaid batch of writ appeals. According to him, the
surplus teachers had not been identified at the time of appointment of the
first respondent. Subsequently, pursuant to the judgment of the Division
Bench dated 31.03.2021 in the aforesaid batch of writ appeals, the
corporate management was required to deploy surplus teachers to needy
schools within its management. Accordingly, the appointment of the first
respondent was approved only with effect from 24.02.2023, the date on
which such deployment was effected. He therefore contended that the
appointment of the first respondent could not be approved from the date
of her initial appointment, as it would amount to approving a backdoor
appointment. The learned Single Judge, according to him, had erred in
allowing the writ petition. He further contended that the order passed in
W.P.(MD)No.16175 of 2021 would not apply to the facts of the present
case and prayed that the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be
set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
submitted that the first respondent was appointed as a Secondary Grade
Teacher against a sanctioned vacant post in the second respondent school
on 01.03.2018. On the date of her appointment, there was no surplus
__________
Page  4  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1669 of 2026
teacher in the school and, therefore, the question of applying the concept
of corporate surplus did not arise. The learned counsel further submitted
that the concept of corporate surplus, as relied upon by the appellants,
was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Iruthaya Amali’s
case (supra) . However, the appointment of the first respondent was made
on 01.03.2018, much prior to the said judgment. Therefore, the
subsequent decision could not be relied upon to restrict the approval of
his appointment to 20.04.2023. He contended that the proceedings dated
09.07.2024 were contrary to the earlier order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.16175 of 2021. The learned Single Judge had rightly set
aside the impugned proceedings and directed the authorities to approve
the appointment from the original date of appointment. Accordingly, he
prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
6. Admittedly, the first respondent was appointed as a Secondary
Grade Teacher in the second respondent school on 01.03.2018. The
proposal seeking approval of her appointment was initially returned by
__________
Page  5  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1669 of 2026
the authorities on the ground that there were surplus teachers in the
second respondent school, which formed part of a corporate management.
Challenging the said order of return, the second respondent school filed
W.P.(MD)No.16175 of 2021. By order dated 02.09.2022, this Court set
aside the order of return and directed the authorities to approve the
appointment of the first respondent with effect from 01.03.2018.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid direction, the second appellant, by
proceedings dated 09.07.2024, approved the appointment of the first
respondent only with effect from 24.02.2023, relying upon the judgment
of the Division Bench in Iruthaya Amali (supra).
7. The question that arises for consideration in this case is whether
the appellants were justified in restricting the approval of the appointment
of the first respondent from 24.02.2023, notwithstanding her original
appointment on 01.03.2018 despite the earlier direction issued by this
Court in W.P.(MD)No.16175 of 2021.
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
first respondent, the appellants have relied upon the judgment of the
Division Bench in Iruthaya Amali’s case (supra) to justify the restriction
of approval from 24.02.2023. However, the appointment of the first
__________
Page  6  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1669 of 2026
respondent was made on 01.03.2018, much prior to the said judgment. In
the facts and circumstances of the present case, the subsequent decision
relied upon by the appellants cannot be invoked to restrict the approval of
the first respondent's appointment to a date subsequent to her original
appointment. It is also relevant to note that the earlier order passed by this
Court in W.P.(MD)No.16175 of 2021 had specifically directed the
authorities to approve the appointment of the first respondent with effect
from 01.03.2018. The appellants, having been directed to grant approval
from the original date of appointment, were not justified in restricting
such approval to 24.02.2023 by relying upon the subsequent deployment
of surplus teachers under the corporate management.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the proceedings
dated 09.07.2024 and directed the appellants to approve the appointment
of the first respondent with effect from 01.03.2018. We find no infirmity
in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference
by this Court in the present writ appeal.
10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. The order dated
23.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.27990 of
__________
Page  7  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1669 of 2026
2025 is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
(P.V.,J.) (P.M.N.,J.)
15-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
bala
To
1. The Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of the School Education,
College Road, D.P.I. Complex,
Chennai
2. The District Educational Officer,
Office of the District Educational Officer,
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
3. The Block Educational Officer,
Reddiarpatti, Alangulam,Tenkasi District.
__________
Page  8  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1669 of 2026
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
AND
DR.P.MURUGAN, J.
bala
WA(MD) No. 1669 of 2026
15-10-2026
__________
Page  9  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )