School appointment approval must be decided on the merits upon a fresh management proposal.

The petitioners challenged the Chief Educational Officer’s order dated 26 October 2021 rejecting approval of their appointments as teachers at Concordia High School, Perambut.

The stated ground was that the Court-appointed Administrator had not cleared their appointments.

The petitioners submitted that the Administrator had since been discharged, new office-bearers had assumed management of the school, and the new management supported their appointments.

They undertook to make fresh representations to the school seeking submission of approval proposals to the educational authorities.

1. Whether the rejection of approval for the petitioners’ appointments should be quashed in light of the subsequent change in the school’s management and the new management’s stated support for the appointments

2. Whether the petitioners should be permitted to pursue approval through fresh representations and proposals to be considered by the school and the educational authorities

The petitions were brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court followed its order in W.P. No. 23465 of 2022 dated 8 November 2022, in which it had addressed the changed management circumstances.

The Court directed that any fresh proposal for approval be considered on its merits and in accordance with law; it did not determine whether the appointments themselves qualified for approval.

The impugned rejection rested on the absence of clearance from a Court-appointed Administrator who had subsequently been discharged, while new office-bearers had taken over and supported the appointments.

In light of that changed circumstance and the petitioners’ offer to submit fresh representations, the Court quashed the rejection and provided a process for the school and educational authorities to consider a fresh proposal, without directing that approval be granted.

It directed the petitioners to approach the school within one week; the school, if satisfied, to forward a proposal to the District Educational Officer within two weeks; the District Educational Officer to forward it to the Chief Educational Officer within one week; and the Chief Educational Officer to pass final orders on the proposal, on its merits and in accordance with law, within four weeks thereafter.

Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.