Madras HC Upholds Order Requiring Teacher’s Appointment Approval From 2018 Date Despite Later Surplus-Staff Deployment

S. Deepa was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher at the second respondent school on 1 March 2018.

The education authorities returned the school’s approval proposal, citing surplus teachers under the corporate management.

In W.P.(MD) No. 16175 of 2021, the High Court set aside that decision and directed approval from the date of appointment, 1 March 2018.

The authorities nevertheless approved the appointment only from a later date, relying on the deployment of surplus teachers and the Division Bench decision in Iruthaya Amali.

Deepa’s subsequent writ petition succeeded, and the Department appealed.

The judgment gives inconsistent later dates: paragraph 2 records 20 April 2023, while paragraphs 3, 6 and 8 record 24 February 2023.

Whether the authorities could restrict approval of Deepa’s appointment to a date in 2023, despite the earlier order directing approval from 1 March 2018.

Whether the later Division Bench decision in Iruthaya Amali justified restricting approval notwithstanding that earlier direction.

The Court relied on its earlier order in W.P.(MD) No. 16175 of 2021, which specifically directed the authorities to approve Deepa’s appointment with effect from 1 March 2018.

It also considered the Division Bench decision in The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department v. Iruthaya Amali, concerning deployment of surplus teachers under corporate managements.

The Court held that this later decision could not be invoked in the circumstances to restrict approval to a date after Deepa’s original appointment, particularly in light of the specific earlier direction.

The Court noted that Deepa’s appointment took effect on 1 March 2018 and that the earlier order had expressly required approval from that date.

Because the appointment predated the Iruthaya Amali decision, the authorities could not rely on that later decision and subsequent surplus-teacher deployment to depart from the earlier direction.

Restricting approval to a 2023 date was therefore unjustified, and the Single Judge had correctly set aside the authorities’ proceedings.