ORDER : 1. The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.No.512/A5/2018 dated 10.04.2018 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the date of appointment ie., 18.08.2017, with all consequential benefits. 2. Heard Mr.V.Panner Selvam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 & 2. Insofar as the third respondent is concerned, since no adverse order is going to be passed against them, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher at the third respondent School on 17.08.2017, in a sanctioned vacancy. Thereafter, the appointment proposal was sent for approval along with necessary documents by the School on 19.11.2017. The said proposal was duly forwarded with recommendation of the second respondent to the first respondent, by proceedings dated 07.02.2018. On consideration of the orders of the School appointing the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher, the first respondent, through the impugned order dated 10.04.2018, rejected the proposal stating that the Management of the third respondent School is running some other Schools, where some excess Teachers are available and unless the excess Teachers are redeployed, the present fresh appointment of the petitioner cannot be approved. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that, the only reason cited, in the impugned order, by the first respondent will not stand in the legal scrutiny. He would further submit that, it is between the official respondents and the School Management to set-off the excess Teachers, if any, available in the other Schools run by the very same Management. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, she is qualified to hold the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and therefore, she was appointed in that sanctioned post. He would further submit that, it is between the official respondents and the School Management to set-off the excess Teachers, if any, available in the other Schools run by the very same Management. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, she is qualified to hold the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and therefore, she was appointed in that sanctioned post. Once in the School, ie., the third respondent, where the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, which was already sanctioned, is required based on the Teacher-Pupil ratio, certainly such appointment cannot be rejected or approval cannot be denied by citing the reason that the same Management is having excess Teachers in other Schools. Therefore, the said order cannot stand in the legal scrutiny and accordingly, it has to be quashed. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the official respondents, would submit that, from the Academic year 2010-11, in a number of Schools run by the very same Management, there are excess Teachers and in spite of repeated instructions given to them, the Management of the third respondent School has not taken care of redeploying those excess Teachers to their other needy Schools. When that being the position, making more and more appointments afresh in the Schools run by the very same Management and seeking approval of such appointments, without resorting to redeployment of excess Teachers, shall not be approved by the authorities. Therefore, the said proposal was rightly rejected by the first respondent. 6. In support of his contention, the learned Additional Government Pleader would rely upon a Government Letter in Letter No.163, dated 13.06.2000. He relied upon Clause (III) of the said letter, which reads thus:- Any Other Language 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader would also rely upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.(MD)No.639 of 2015 in the matter of The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai and others v. B.Infanse and another. By relying upon the said judgment of the Division Bench, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that when excess Teachers are found in the Schools of the same Management, the authorities have every right to insist upon the Management to redeploy those Teachers. By relying upon the said judgment of the Division Bench, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that when excess Teachers are found in the Schools of the same Management, the authorities have every right to insist upon the Management to redeploy those Teachers. When that being the position, the very same Management cannot send proposals seeking approvals for appointment in any of the Schools run by the same Management on the pretext that, in that particular School, some of the posts, which were sanctioned already, are vacant. 8. I have considered the said rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the materials placed before me. 9. It is not in dispute that the third respondent School is a recognized minority School and in that School, there is a sanctioned post of Secondary Grade Teacher which became vacant, due to the transfer of the erstwhile incumbent. In the said vacancy, the petitioner was appointed, by way of appointment order dated 17.08.2017 and the proposal was sent on 19.11.2017 to the first respondent through the second respondent for approval. On perusal of the impugned order, it discloses that, the said proposal was rejected only on the ground that the Management of the third respondent School, instead of sending proposal for approval of appointment of a Teacher afresh like the petitioner's appointment, could have redeployed the excess Teachers available in other Schools run by the very same Management. Only citing this reason, the impugned order was passed. 10. Justifying the said impugned order, the learned Additional Government Pleader since relied on the Government Letter in Letter No.163, dated 13.06.2000, the same has also been perused. The said Clause (III), as extracted hereinabove, in the said Government Letter, no doubt, has given directions/guidelines to the local level officers to redeploy the excess Teachers available in the Schools run by the same Management. From the reading of the said instructions in Clause (III) of the Government Letter, it is found that, such direction was given by the Government to the officers concerned of the District or Taluk level in the Education Department, such as the official respondents herein. No doubt, if the concerned officials find that in any of the Schools, excess Teachers are available, those excess Teachers can very well be deployed to the needy places/Schools either in the same Management or to some other Managements. No doubt, if the concerned officials find that in any of the Schools, excess Teachers are available, those excess Teachers can very well be deployed to the needy places/Schools either in the same Management or to some other Managements. But, necessarily that job has to be undertaken only by the officials and the officials cannot expect such redeployment can be done by the Management itself. Because, every post where, Teacher is appointed in aided School must be a sanctioned post, for which, every year, concerned authorities of the Government are fixing the staff strength and giving sanction. If a Teacher has been appointed and working in a sanctioned post and subsequently, if it is found that such posting of Teacher becomes excess, then action must be initiated only by the authorities concerned and accordingly, they can redeploy the Teacher along with the posting to some other needy School. Instead of doing this job by the officials concerned, they very conveniently shift the burden on the Management of the School by adopting a method of refusing or rejecting or withholding the appointment proposal sent for approval in some other School of the same Management, citing the reason that the Management can itself take steps to redeploy the Teachers. 11. Therefore, based on Clause (III) of the Government letter, the authorities cannot justify the reason given in the impugned order, as the job of redeployment is not vested with the School Management, but it is only with the concerned officials, who sanctioned the staff strength to each of the School based on the Teacher-Pupil ratio every Academic year. 12. Insofar as the judgment of the Division Bench relied upon by the learned Additional Government Pleader is concerned, I have gone through the said judgment. The Division Bench, after having taken into account an earlier Division Bench judgment made in W.A.(MD)No.70 of 2012, has made the following observations:- “6. As stated supra, inasmuch as appointments of the writ petitioners were made against sanctioned posts in the respective schools. Observations made in the W.A.No.70 of 2012 dated 13.03.2012, granting permission to the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, to take steps, to deploy excess teachers, from the schools under the same management, cannot be a ground, to deny approval of appointments of the writ petitioners, as Secondary Grade Teachers in the schools, in which, they were appointed. Observations made in the W.A.No.70 of 2012 dated 13.03.2012, granting permission to the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, to take steps, to deploy excess teachers, from the schools under the same management, cannot be a ground, to deny approval of appointments of the writ petitioners, as Secondary Grade Teachers in the schools, in which, they were appointed. When the school management sends a proposal for approval of the teachers, the educational authorities have to consider, as to whether such teachers have been appointed against sanctioned posts and whether they are qualified for such appointment. Rule of reservation wherever applied is also verified. On the above aspects, there is absolutely no quarrel by the educational authorities. 7. When a specific question was posed to the learned Special Government Pleader, as to whether appointment of Mr.S.Austin Jeba Solomon, a teacher in TDTA Primary and Middle Schools, Devarkulam Pastorate, Tirunelveli District/1st respondent in W.A(MD).No.70 of 2012 was approved or not, notwithstanding the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the above appeal, filed by the State, the answer was in the affirmative and therefore, it is evident that even after said observations, the department had chosen to approve the appointment of the said teacher. For another question posed to the learned Special Government Pleader, as to whether the department had taken steps to redeploy the excess teachers, as observed, the answer was in the negative. Thus in the absence of any steps being taken by the department and when appointments of the writ petitioners, are against sanctioned posts, in the respective schools and considering the fact that the department itself, had chosen to approve the appointment of one Mr.S.Austin Jeba Solomon, on its own, party respondent in W.A.No.70 of 2012, wherein, the abovesaid observations were made, this Court is of the view that the writ petitioners are entitled for approval of their appointments, as Secondary Grade Teachers. At this juncture, it is also worthwhile to consider the following decisions, as to whether a benefit conferred to a similarly placed person can be denied or not, when facts are similar. ... 8. It is now more than four years, since the observations were made in W.A.(MD).No.70 of 2012 dated 13.03.2012. It is also be noted that every year as per G.O.MS.No.525, School Education(D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, staff fixation is done, in each school, by educational authorities, on the basis of teacher-pupil ratio. ... 8. It is now more than four years, since the observations were made in W.A.(MD).No.70 of 2012 dated 13.03.2012. It is also be noted that every year as per G.O.MS.No.525, School Education(D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, staff fixation is done, in each school, by educational authorities, on the basis of teacher-pupil ratio. No materials have been placed before this Court, as to the staff fixation done in the subsequent years, from 2012 onwards, in the schools, in which, surplus was noticed. If the existences of surplus staff continued in the subsequent years, the department ought to have taken action only, as against the said schools and redeployment could have been done then and there. But from the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader, it is evident that no steps were taken, for all these four years. If in the subsequent years, staff fixation in the schools, in which excess was noticed, had already been approved then the educational authorities are bound by such orders. 9. In the light of the discussion and decisions, stated supra, we do not find any valid reason, to interfere with the order made in NB2 the writ petitions. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed”. 13. On perusal of the said decision of the Division Bench, the proposition as has been indicated hereinabove appears to be strengthened. Because, in the said judgment of the Division Bench also, the learned Judges have stated that it is for the Department to take steps to redeploy the excess Teachers based on the Teacher-Pupil ratio in every Academic Year. The judgment of the earlier Division Bench, that has been quoted, has also stated that, if surplus Teachers are available, they can be deployed and if at all, any surplus Teachers are available, action should have been taken only against the said School and redeployment could have been done then and there. Therefore, there cannot be any connection between the two aspects, namely, (i) the deployment of excess Teachers in same Schools under the same Management and (ii) the approval to be given for appointment made in some other Schools of the same Management where there is no excess Teacher and the appointment has been made only in the available sanctioned vacancy. 14. Very often, the Educational authorities are confronting this issue by linging both. 14. Very often, the Educational authorities are confronting this issue by linging both. The Educational authorities shall not cite a reason of non-deployment of excess Teachers in School or Schools run by the same Management, as a reason for refusal or rejection of approval to be given to the appointment made in some other Schools of the same Management where such appointment has been made in a sanctioned vacancy. 15. In view of the said principle as has been detailed above, the reason cited by the first respondent, through the impugned order, in the opinion of this Court, was not sound, as such reason would lead to a disastrous consequence. Because, if the Educational authorities relinquish their power and authority to redeploy excess Teachers from one School to another and leave the matter to the decision or discretion of the School Management itself, it will lead to a chaos and confusion, as no School Management can be expected to act in such a manner to redeploy the excess Teachers on its own. Instead, as the power vested on them, if the Educational authorities themselves take the lead to identify the excess Teachers available in any Schools in every Academic year based on the overall strength, according to the Teacher-Pupil ratio and cause action then and there to redeploy the excess Teachers either to the other Schools of the same Management or any other Schools, such action can be justified. In fact, this kind of action alone has been indicated by the Government in the said Government Letter No.163 dated 13.06.2000, Education Department, as has been solidly relied upon by the learned Additional Government Pleader. 16. In this case, the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent citing the said reason of non-deployment of excess Teachers by the same Management to some other Schools, which cannot be a reason to reject the approval of the appointment of the petitioner, as the petitioner has been appointed in a sanctioned vacancy of the third respondent School and no other infirmity has been found by the authorities for rejecting approval for such appointment made to the petitioner. 17. In view of the above, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned order does not have any acceptable reason and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. 17. In view of the above, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned order does not have any acceptable reason and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for reconsideration, where the first respondent must take into account the staff sanctioned strength of the third respondent School and other requirements viz., qualification, etc., for the purpose of giving approval to the petitioner's appointment and the reason of non-deployment of excess Teachers by the third respondent School Management in respect of some other School shall no longer be a reason to be cited by the authorities for taking a decision regarding approval of the petitioner's appointment. 18. The needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the first respondent and an order to that effect shall be passed by him within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.