Aided schools have no vested right to demand sanction of a new pre-vocational post.

The school management sought a direction to sanction a pre-vocational instructor post in Tailoring at TNDTA Middle School, Mullakkadu, from 11 March 2008, and initially also sought approval of Tmt. P. Sudha’s appointment.

At the hearing, the management did not pursue the approval prayer and pressed only its request for a new post.

The previous incumbent, Tmt. Indira Eben, had retired, and a Division Bench had earlier held that the post she occupied had been extinguished and that no sanctioned post existed for Sudha’s appointment; the review petition was also dismissed.

The Department relied on G.O. (1D) No. 80 dated 4 March 2026, which stated that no new posts would be sanctioned and that such pre-vocational posts would be treated as vanishing posts.

Whether the school management was entitled to a direction requiring the Department to sanction a new pre-vocational instructor post in Tailoring

Whether the school management could obtain approval of Sudha’s appointment in this petition, given that it did not press that part of its prayer at the hearing

The Division Bench’s decision in W.A.(MD) No. 1284 of 2014 established, in the context of the earlier appointment dispute, that salary approval for an aided-school teacher requires a sanctioned post and that the post held by the previous incumbent had been extinguished on her retirement.

The Court also noted the Department’s reliance on Section 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act, but did not separately analyse that provision.

The Department’s policy, as stated in G.O. (1D) No. 80 dated 4 March 2026, was that no new pre-vocational posts would be sanctioned and that such posts would stand abolished upon the incumbent’s retirement.

The Court treated the earlier Division Bench finding—that the predecessor’s post had lapsed and no post remained for Sudha’s appointment—as settled background.

The management’s remaining request was for a new post, but the Department’s stated policy was not to sanction such posts.

In the absence of a vested right to grant-in-aid, the Court declined to direct the Department to create or sanction a post.

The approval issue was not adjudicated because the management expressly chose not to pursue it.

It granted the school management liberty to challenge G.O. (1D) No. 80 dated 4 March 2026 in accordance with law.

No costs were ordered.