Regularisation is impermissible for aided-school employees appointed without sanctioned posts or departmental approval.

Kamalammal was initially engaged by the second respondent, a minority aided school, as a part-time sweeper.

She contended that she had in substance worked as a full-time sweeper from 1 April 1982 and that her salary was paid by the Education Department; however, no formal appointment order appointing her to a full-time post was issued.

The State contended that she was appointed by the school management only as a part-time sweeper on 1 July 1987, on consolidated pay, without appointment through the Employment Exchange or an open competitive process, and without reference to a sanctioned full-time sweeper post.

Kamalammal was permitted to retire from the school in 2016 and subsequently approached the High Court after approximately two years, seeking regularisation with effect from 1 April 1982 and consequential monetary benefits.

The Single Judge allowed her writ petition by order dated 27 November 2024 in W.P. No. 19521 of 2018.

The State preferred the present writ appeal, contending that her appointment had neither been made against a sanctioned post nor approved by the Education Department.

Whether an employee engaged as a part-time sweeper on consolidated pay in a Government-aided school, without appointment to a sanctioned post or departmental approval, could claim regularisation as a full-time sweeper with retrospective effect and consequential benefits.

Whether the Single Judge was justified in directing such regularisation despite the absence of a sanctioned post and approval by the Education Department.

The Court applied the principle that regularisation cannot be granted where the initial engagement was not made against a duly sanctioned post and was not approved by the competent governmental authority.

Employment in a Government-aided school does not, by itself, confer entitlement to Government-service benefits when the appointment was made by the school management on consolidated pay and outside the prescribed recruitment process.

The Court did not cite any specific statute or judicial precedent; its decision was based on the requirements of a sanctioned post, departmental approval, and lawful appointment.

The Court found that Kamalammal had not produced, and the record did not establish, any appointment order appointing her as a full-time sweeper.

Her engagement was treated as a part-time appointment by the school management, on consolidated pay, without recruitment through the Employment Exchange or an open competitive process.

Since the post was not sanctioned and the Education Department had not approved the appointment, the Court held that the foundational conditions for regularisation were absent.

Consequently, the Single Judge’s direction to regularise her services with retrospective effect from 1 April 1982 was contrary to law and could not be sustained.

The writ appeal was allowed, the order dated 27 November 2024 in W.P. No. 19521 of 2018 was set aside, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

No order as to costs was made.

The Court observed that any salary or terminal benefits otherwise payable would have to be settled by the school management.