Fresh aided-school appointments require prior accommodation of surplus employees under government policy.

The appellant was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 14 October 2022 in S.N.R. Ramasamy Raja Higher Secondary School, a Government-aided school, against the vacancy caused by the retirement of an employee on 30 June 2022.

The school management submitted a proposal seeking approval of the appointment, but the proposal was rejected on the ground that a writ petition concerning the issue was pending.

Subsequently, in a batch of appeals led by W.A. (MD) No. 816 of 2023, the Division Bench upheld the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 238 dated 13 November 2018 and directed that pending proposals for appointments be considered on their individual merits, subject to the approved post being co-terminus with the incumbent and not being filled again after it fell vacant.

The appellant challenged the dismissal of his writ petition, W.P. No. 12836 of 2024, by order dated 1 July 2024.

During the appeal, it was submitted that the Junior Assistant post continued to be sanctioned and that a fresh proposal had been submitted by the school on 25 August 2026.

The State objected that surplus Junior Assistants in other schools were required to be accommodated first.

The Court applied the principles governing approval of appointments in aided schools under G.O. Ms. No. 238 dated 13 November 2018, whose validity had been upheld by the Division Bench in W.A. (MD) No. 816 of 2023 and connected cases.

Under that decision, appointments for which approval proposals were pending before or after the Government Order must be considered on their individual merits; if approved, the appointment and post would be co-terminus with the incumbent, and the institution would have no right to fill the post after it became vacant.

The Court further applied the administrative principle that available surplus employees must be given preference and accommodated before fresh appointments are considered, consistently with Government policy.

The competent authority, rather than the Court, must undertake the factual and policy assessment and decide the proposal in accordance with law.

The earlier rejection of the appellant’s proposal could not by itself conclude the matter because the Division Bench had subsequently directed that pending appointment proposals be examined on their own merits under the framework of G.O. Ms. No. 238.

Although the appellant asserted that the Junior Assistant post remained sanctioned and that he alone was working against it, the State raised the relevant issue of surplus Junior Assistants available for deployment elsewhere.

The Court held that this question, along with the sanctioned strength, eligibility for approval, and the effect of the Government’s staffing policy, required consideration by the competent educational authority.

Since the school had submitted a fresh proposal on 25 August 2026, the appropriate relief was not automatic judicial approval of the appointment but a direction to the authority to take a reasoned decision on the proposal, while applying the preference accorded to surplus employees.

The competent educational authority was directed to consider the proposal submitted by the fourth respondent-school on 25 August 2026 and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

The Court did not itself approve the appellant’s appointment.

Any approval, if granted, would remain subject to the principles governing co-terminus appointments and the restrictions on refilling the post laid down in the earlier Division Bench judgment under G.O. Ms. No. 238.