Approval cannot be denied solely on present staffing strength without examining the sanctioned vacancy at appointment.

The petitioner was appointed as a part-time Assistant Teacher in Commerce at Shree Jain Vidyalaya on 9 June 2006 and joined on 23 June 2006.

He was re-appointed on probation with effect from 1 November 2008, but the school did not forward his appointment for approval at that time.

In 2018, the Managing Committee resolved to forward papers for approval, placing the petitioner against a vacancy arising from a teacher’s retirement.

The DI refused approval, citing the absence of a vacancy within the sanctioned strength; a subsequent reasoned rejection was set aside, and the DI was directed to reconsider the matter.

By order dated 11 March 2024, the DI again rejected the claim, relying principally on the fact that the Higher Secondary section had six sanctioned posts but seven teachers.

The petitioner challenged that order.

1. Whether the petitioner’s claim for approval could be rejected solely because the Higher Secondary section was presently staffed above its sanctioned strength, without determining the vacancy and sanctioned strength at the relevant time of his appointment.

2. Whether the petitioner’s appointment and qualifications were capable of consideration under Notification No. 1691-SE(S)/4A-53/2001, having regard to the vacancy, subject group, and sanctioned strength applicable at the relevant time.

Notification No. 1691-SE(S)/4A-53/2001 dated 20 September 2001 permits a duly qualified teacher already working in a D.A.-getting school to be considered for placement against a vacancy within the sanctioned strength; for Higher Secondary vacancies, preference is given to teachers holding an Honours or Master’s degree in the relevant subject, with qualifications assessed by reference to the time of initial appointment.

The notification does not create additional posts, but regulates placement against sanctioned vacancies.

The Court also relied on Vinod Kumar Tripathi v. State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA 17731 of 2024, decided 20 August 2026, for the principle that the requirement for the Managing Committee to approach the DI when a vacancy arises is regulatory and, absent fraud or misrepresentation by the teacher, delay attributable to the school does not by itself extinguish the teacher’s substantive claim.

The DI’s decision relied on the present excess of teachers over sanctioned posts but did not determine whether the petitioner’s 2006 appointment was against a sanctioned vacancy, the subject group to which that vacancy belonged, or the vacancy and staffing sequence at the relevant time.

The Court considered those matters distinct from the school’s present numerical position.

The petitioner’s M.Com. and B.Ed. qualifications appeared to satisfy the relevant subject-qualification requirement, and the school’s later placement and approval of seven teachers against six sanctioned Higher Secondary posts did not resolve whether the petitioner’s earlier claim had been properly assessed.

The Court therefore held that the impugned order was incomplete and unreasonable; it further concluded that the relevant tests appeared to be satisfied in the petitioner’s case.

It directed the DI to grant approval of the petitioner’s service with effect from the appropriate date and to issue the approval order within four weeks of communication of the judgment.