After 19 Years’ Service, Madras HC Orders Approval And Salary From 2007 For Minority-School Vocational Instructor

The petitioner, a minority school, appointed R. John Vincent Paul as Vocational Instructor in General Machinist on 4 June 2007, following the retirement of the incumbent from a sanctioned post.

The school submitted an approval proposal on 1 August 2007. After an earlier writ petition directed reconsideration of the proposal, the Chief Educational Officer rejected it on 21 October 2021, stating that the vacancy should have been filled by absorbing a part-time instructor.

The school challenged that rejection and sought approval from the appointment date, with salary and attendant benefits.

Article 30(1) protects a minority institution’s right to administer its institution; absent a dispute about the appointee’s qualifications or eligibility, interference with an appointment to a sanctioned post on the ground of failure to obtain prior approval may impermissibly restrict that right, as stated in Government of Tamil Nadu v. J. Remila.

G.O.Ms. No. 9, School Education (VE) Department, dated 6 January 2009, barred the opening of further vocational courses; the Division Bench in W.A.(MD) No. 532 of 2019 held that appointments made after that order could not claim approval as of right, while proposals concerning qualified persons appointed to sanctioned posts before it were to be considered under the applicable rules.

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Secretary/Correspondent, Setupati Higher Secondary School concerned a non-minority institution and, although it addressed appointments without prior approval, granted relief on sympathetic grounds to the instructor concerned.

The Court also noted that the respondents produced no Government Order or other material substantiating the asserted absorption policy.

The appointment and approval proposal both predated G.O.Ms. No. 9, so the later policy did not bar consideration of this appointment; the Division Bench’s ruling expressly preserved consideration of eligible pre-order appointments to sanctioned posts.

The respondent’s assertion that the vacancy had to be filled through absorption was unsupported, and the 2007 staff-fixation order sanctioned the post without imposing that condition.

Because the case concerned a minority institution, the Court considered the prior-approval objection in light of Article 30(1) and J. Remila, and distinguished the Supreme Court decision concerning a non-minority institution.

The appointee had served since 2007; the Court also relied on that long service in finding the rejection unsustainable.

It directed the respondents to approve the appointment with effect from 4 June 2007 and release salary and all attendant benefits from that date, within eight weeks of receiving the order.