JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in A.Thi.Mu.No.955/A1/18 dated 23.01.2019 and quash the same and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the date of appointment i.e. 02.04.2018 and confer all the consequential benefits.) The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in A.Thi.Mu.No.955/A1/18 dated 23.01.2019 and quash the same and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the date of appointment i.e. 02.04.2018 and confer all the consequential benefits. 2. In the 3rd respondent school, which is a recognized minority school, there were three sanctioned teachers posts, out of which, in one post, one Mr.R.Francis, who was working as Secondary Grade Teacher retired from service on superannuation on 31.03.2018. In the said vacancy caused because of the superannuation of the said teacher, which is already a sanctioned vacancy, the petitioner was appointed by the Management of the School on 23.09.2018 with effect from 02.04.2018 and pursuant to the said appointment, a proposal to approve such appointment has been sent by the school to the 2nd respondent on 07.07.2018 with all necessary documents. In order to appreciate the content of the said proposal sent by the school seeking approval with the list of documents annexed therein, the entirety of the proposal of the school dated 07.07.2018 is extracted herein: “TAMIL” > 3. However, the said proposal has been rejected or returned by the 2nd respondent through the impugned communication dated 23.01.2019 with following reasons. “TAMIL” Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 5. Four reasons have been given in the impugned order. However, the serial number is started from 2, not from 1, which shows that, the four reasons have become five reasons. But, in reality, only four reasons have been given in the impugned order. The first reason is that, the school management should have annexed the relieving order of the erstwhile teacher, who superannuated on 31.03.2018. However, the serial number is started from 2, not from 1, which shows that, the four reasons have become five reasons. But, in reality, only four reasons have been given in the impugned order. The first reason is that, the school management should have annexed the relieving order of the erstwhile teacher, who superannuated on 31.03.2018. In respect of the said reason, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has given suitable answer to state that, the said incumbent retired from service on superannuation and thereafter, he started receiving pension and all the records are available with the 2nd respondent office. 6. The next reason is, the school must have produced a certificate from Fire Service and Health Department as on date. It is very ridiculous to note that, when a proposal for approval of appointment of a teacher is sent by the school, the Officer like the 2nd respondent insists upon certificate from Fire Service Department and Health Department, which never heard of. 7. The third reason is, the school must have obtained a certificate from concerned officer that, there is no excess staff in that school and produce the same. It is still peculiar and obnoxious to note that, the school is a minority school, where there are only three sanctioned secondary grade teacher posts, out of which, one became vacant, where, the petitioner was appointed. All the details were given by the school at the time of sending proposal with necessary documents. When that being the position, the 2nd respondent insisted upon a certificate of no excess staff is available in the school from concerned officer, that means, the concerned Officer is the District Educational Officer, who is the authority to approve the appointment and therefore, the said authority can very well verify that any excess staff are there in the school. However, the 2nd respondent as if that, he is not connected with the 1st respondent nor he is working under the 1st respondent, has given this reason. 8. The next and last reason is that, the recognition order of the school has not been annexed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the school has been recognised from 1940. Despite such an oldest school in the locality that has been continuously functioning for nearly about 80 years, such a reason has been given. 9. 8. The next and last reason is that, the recognition order of the school has not been annexed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the school has been recognised from 1940. Despite such an oldest school in the locality that has been continuously functioning for nearly about 80 years, such a reason has been given. 9. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court feels that, the Officers like the 2nd respondent are, of late, passing such kind of mechanical orders absolutely with unsustainable reasons, knowing well that, these reasons would not be sustained. However, for reasons best known to them, these kind of orders are passed. 10. This Court has to take judicial notice that, this is not the first time, these kind of orders are passed by the Officers like the 2nd respondent in the Block level in the Education department, very often, this Court has come across this kind of unsustainable orders without any basis. Every time, these kind of orders are being challenged before this Court by the aggrieved parties either by the teachers concerned or the schools concerned by invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Thus, the burden of the Court is unnecessarily being enhanced or increased by such kind of unscrupulous fashion of order being passed by the officials like the 2nd respondent. 11. This kind of attitude on the part of the officials like the 2nd respondent cannot be approved, instead, can only be deprecated, time and again or repeatedly, this Court has held several times that this kind of orders, without application of mind, should not be passed by the authorities. Moreover, in this case, the 2nd respondent is only a forwarding authority to forward the proposal to the 1st respondent, who is the approving authority and if at all, the approving authority rejects the approval for any valid reasons, that can be accepted to. The forwarding authority unmindful of his powers and responsibility has passed order indiscriminately where none of the reasons cited in the order impugned would be sustained. 12. The forwarding authority unmindful of his powers and responsibility has passed order indiscriminately where none of the reasons cited in the order impugned would be sustained. 12. In view of the above, since judicial time of this Court considerably taken by these kind of reckless orders being passed by the Officers, like the 2nd respondent, this Court with great pain and displeasure wants to impose cost on the officer, who passed the impugned order, as all the four reasons cited in the impugned order are not only unsustainable, but has been purposefully made, knowing well that these reasons cannot be sustained. 13. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent directly, who shall consider the proposal sent by the school with regard to the appointment of the petitioner and pass necessary orders with regard to the proposal on the petitioner's appointment, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. The 2nd respondent shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court from his personal fund for the purpose of augmenting the COVID 19 situation. The aforesaid compliance shall be made by the 2nd respondent, within a period of two weeks from today. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is ordered with the aforesaid cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Post the matter on 14.09.2020 for “Reporting Compliance”.