The Correspondent and Headmaster vs The State of Tamil Nadu

2026:MHC:4433
WP No. 21380 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 21380 of 2022
CNR:{HCMA011011112022}
and
WMP Nos. 20372 and 20373 of 2022
The Correspondent and Headmaster
St.Anns Higher Secondary School,
Tindivanam- 604 001 Villupuram District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
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.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

2026:MHC:4433
WP No. 21380 of 2022
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to
the impugned proceedings issued by the 4th respondent Chief Educational
Officer in Na.Ka. No. 5741 /Aa3/ 2016 dated 21.10.2021, Quash the Same, and
further Direct the 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 release salary and all
attendant benefits with effect from the said date.
For Petitioner(s): Ms.H.Mary Sowmi Rexi
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
For Respondent(s): Mrs.P.Mahalakshmi,
Additional Government Pleader
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.
__________
Page2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

2026:MHC:4433
WP No. 21380 of 2022
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
__________
Page3 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

2026:MHC:4433
WP No. 21380 of 2022
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.
__________
Page4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

2026:MHC:4433
WP No. 21380 of 2022
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.
__________
Page5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

2026:MHC:4433
WP No. 21380 of 2022
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
__________
Page6 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

2026:MHC:4433
WP No. 21380 of 2022
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
__________
Page7 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

2026:MHC:4433
WP No. 21380 of 2022
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.
__________
Page8 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

2026:MHC:4433
WP No. 21380 of 2022
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
__________
Page9 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

2026:MHC:4433
WP No. 21380 of 2022
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.
__________
Page10 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

2026:MHC:4433
WP No. 21380 of 2022
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
__________
Page11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

2026:MHC:4433
WP No. 21380 of 2022
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.
__________
Page12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

2026:MHC:4433
WP No. 21380 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
WP No. 21380 of 2022
03-11-2026
__________
Page13 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )