Vocational instructors appointed against non-sanctioned posts cannot claim regularisation under a one-time concession.

The first respondents in both writ appeals were working as Vocational Instructors in aided higher secondary schools.

They sought regularisation of their services under G.O. Ms. No. 35, School Education (VE) Department, dated 09.02.2007, claiming that they had been appointed against sanctioned posts and were entitled to regularisation based on seniority.

The learned Single Judge accepted the principal basis of their claim and directed relief by orders dated 05.08.2019 in W.P. Nos. 7712 and 7724 of 2007.

The State challenged those orders, contending that the respondents had been appointed by private school managements against posts that had not been sanctioned by the competent educational authorities.

The Government further stated that only Vocational Instructors appointed against sanctioned posts had been considered for regularisation and that the relevant posts had subsequently been abolished by G.O. Ms. No. 9 dated 06.01.2009.

Whether Vocational Instructors appointed by private managements or Parent-Teachers Associations against non-sanctioned posts could claim regularisation under G.O. Ms. No. 35 dated 09.02.2007.

Whether the orders of the learned Single Judge directing or permitting consideration of the respondents’ claims for regularisation were legally sustainable in the absence of sanctioned posts and prior governmental approval.

The Court applied the principle that an appointment made against a non-sanctioned post cannot ordinarily be regularised, particularly where the appointment was made by a private management or Parent-Teachers Association without prior governmental approval.

It relied on G.O. Ms. No. 35 dated 09.02.2007, treating it as a one-time concession rather than a source of any vested or continuing right to regularisation.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. M. Theivanayagi, SLP (C) Nos. 6162–6163 of 2022, decided on 15.12.2025, the Court held that grant-in-aid is not a vested right and that an appointment made by a Parent-Teachers Association or without the Government’s prior approval cannot be used to claim regularisation.

The Court also noted the State’s submission that the posts of Vocational Instructors had been abolished under G.O. Ms. No. 9 dated 06.01.2009.

The Court found that the respondents’ appointments were made by the private school managements against posts for which no sanction had been issued by the competent educational authorities.

Since regularisation under G.O. Ms. No. 35 was a one-time governmental concession applicable to eligible appointments, it did not validate appointments made against non-sanctioned posts or create an enforceable right in favour of the respondents.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning in M. Theivanayagi further established that an appointment made by a Parent-Teachers Association, even assuming such appointment was permissible, required prior governmental approval and could not independently support a claim for regularisation.

Accordingly, the learned Single Judge’s assumption that the appointments were against sanctioned posts was contrary to the Government’s undisputed stand and the applicable legal principles.

The writ orders dated 05.08.2019 in W.P. Nos. 7712 and 7724 of 2007 were therefore set aside, and both writ appeals were allowed.

No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.