JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for willfully disobeying and not complying with the order of this Court, dated 31.07.2018, in W.P.(MD)No.16913 of 2018.) 1. This Contempt Petition is filed alleging willful obedience of the order of this Court, dated 31.07.2018, in W.P.(MD)No.16913 of 2018. 2. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.16913 of 2018 was filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order of the District Educational Officer, dated 05.01.2018 and to direct the second and third respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in 5th respondent School, namely St. Antony's Primary School, Vadakankulam, with effect from the date of appointment, i.e., 21.11.2016 and disburse the grant in aid and other attendant benefits. 3. This Court in W.P.(MD)No.16913 of 2018, vide order, dated 31.07.2018, has held as under: “6. I have heard D.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, who would fairly submit that, in similar circumstances, this Court already passed some orders, where, it was directed that each school shall be considered as a unit for the purpose of staff fixation and if at all any excess teaching staff available in any of the school, run by the same management, that should be found out and steps should be taken to redeploy all those teachers at the needed school and the job is vest only with the official concerned of the Education Department and therefore for that reason, the management of that school cannot be blamed. 7. I have heard the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government pleader for the respondents and perused the impugned order and other connected materials filed before this Court. 8. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and endorsed by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the reasons cited in the impugned order cannot be sustained. The reason being that, each school would get recognition from the Educational Officer, on the basis of the infrastructure and based on the pupil strength in each school, teaching staff and non teaching staff is fixed for every academic year and only on the basis of the staff sanctioned, aid would be given to the school concern. The reason being that, each school would get recognition from the Educational Officer, on the basis of the infrastructure and based on the pupil strength in each school, teaching staff and non teaching staff is fixed for every academic year and only on the basis of the staff sanctioned, aid would be given to the school concern. Therefore, if at all any excess teaching staff is available in any particular school, where the school management wants to make further appointment, that can be curtailed by directing them to redeploy the said teacher. 9. However, if a school is not having any excess teacher, in the school run by the same management, that cannot be shown as a reason for rejecting the proposal of appointment, sent by the school concerned. The said issue has already been discussed and decided in number of cases. Therefore, the said reasoning can no longer be a good reason for rejecting the proposal of appointment, which was made in a sanctioned vacancy of the fifth respondent school. Therefore, the impugned order, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be sustained, therefore, liable to be quashed. “In the result, the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration. The fifth respondent school is directed to resubmit the proposal to the second respondent through the fourth and third respondents, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such resubmitted proposal from the fifth respondent, the second respondent shall consider the said resubmitted proposal and pass orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law and if the petitioner's appointment is otherwise in order, necessary orders for approval of such appointment can also be passed by the second respondent and the needful shall be done, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the resubmitted proposal from the fifth respondent. With this direction, this Writ Petition is ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed” 4. This Court has remitted back for reconsideration and pass an order on merits and in accordance to law, if the petitioner is otherwise appointed in accordance to law, the appointment shall be approved. With this direction, this Writ Petition is ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed” 4. This Court has remitted back for reconsideration and pass an order on merits and in accordance to law, if the petitioner is otherwise appointed in accordance to law, the appointment shall be approved. This Court has held that the surplus teacher cannot be a ground for denying approval of appointment and has also held that the School is not having surplus teacher. It is submitted that the respondents have preferred writ appeal in W.A.(MD) No. 1524 of 2019 against the order of the Learned Single Judge and the same is pending. 5. In the meanwhile, in a subsequent Division Bench judgment rendered in W.A. (MD) No.76 of 2019 and batch, it has been held that if the schools run by the Corporate Management is having excess Teacher, then the surplus Teachers ought to be deputed in the vacancy rather than appointing new Teachers. There are other issues in the same Judgment and the respondents have preferred SLP (C) No. 15702 / 2021 and obtained interim stay, vide order, dated 14.03.2022. 6. The issue of surplus Teachers is having long history for more than two decades. The surplus Teachers was not an issue that arose suddenly, it has occurred over a period of time from the year 2000 onwards. Based on G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997 this Court has directed the authorities to pass the transfer order or deputation order thereby the surplus teachers are transferred to needy school. The Director of School Education and Director of Elementary Education or any officer empowered by the Director are the authorities to pass orders. Therefore, this Court have passed an order stating that the Directors ought to have passed an order by transferring the surplus Teachers, but the Directors have not passed any such orders or taken any steps to deploy the surplus teachers. In such circumstances this Court has held that since the authorities have not passed any transfer orders or deputation orders, the authorities cannot deny approval of appointment to the new teachers by citing surplus teachers. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the issue raised in these cases, is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment in Director of Elementary Education, Chennai and two others Vs B.Infanse and another (W.A.(MD)Nos. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the issue raised in these cases, is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment in Director of Elementary Education, Chennai and two others Vs B.Infanse and another (W.A.(MD)Nos. 639 of 2015 etc., dated 17.06.2015) and which in turn, is based upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court. Before the Full Bench, G.O.Ms.No. 525 School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, was challenged and the Full Bench has interpreted the said G.O, which has been considered in the abovesaid Division Bench judgement. The relevant portion of the Division Bench judgment is extracted below: ''5. Indisputably, the posts, in which, the writ petitioners have been appointed, are sanctioned by the Education Department, after assessment, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education(D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997. Eligibility of the writ petitioners, is not disputed. Dates of appointment of the teachers, is also not disputed. Earlier, when the request of the teachers working in TDTA Primary and Middle Schools, Puliangudi, Tirunelveli District, for approval, was denied, on the ground that they were redeployed by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Writ Petitions have been filed. Vide common order in W.P.No.10352, 10350 and 10351 of 2006, dated 08.12.2006, they were allowed. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, has filed Writ Appeals as against the common order dated 08.12.2006 and that the same were dismissed, by separate orders in W.A(MD)No.205 of 2007 dated 09.06.2007, W.A(MD)No.194 of 2007 dated 09.06.2007 and W.A(MD)No.292 of 2007 dated 02.08.2007, respectively. As the orders made in the abovesaid Writ Appeals are similar in nature, suffice to extract one such order, which is as follows:- Order made in W.A(MD)No.205 of 2007 dated 09.06.2007 ''This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 08.12.2006 made in W.P.Nos.10350 to 10352 of 2006, wherein the relief of issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli in passing redeployment order by construing that there are certain excess teachers with reference to G.O.Ms.No.525 School Education (D1) Department dated 29.12.1997. The said G.O. was the subject matter of the Full Bench decision in the case of Director of Elementary Education Vs. S. Vigila reported in [ 2006(5) CTC 385 ], wherein it was held as follows:. The said G.O. was the subject matter of the Full Bench decision in the case of Director of Elementary Education Vs. S. Vigila reported in [ 2006(5) CTC 385 ], wherein it was held as follows:. "Keeping in view the various relevant aspects, we feel that G.O.Ms.No. 525 dated 29.12.1997 should be interpreted in the following manner: (1) The ratio of students-teacher strength as indicated in the G.O. should be primarily considered by taking each individual standard/section as a unit. (2) The minimum strength of teachers required obviously should not fall below the number of Standards/Section in a school. In other words, if there are five standards, obviously the minimum number of teachers should be five, out of which one would be the Headmaster. (3) If the students' strength in a particular Standard exceeds 60, at that stage, an additional section is required to be created requiring the sanction of a second teacher and the strength reaches 100, the post of a third teacher is required. (4) Even after maintaining the aforesaid ratio by taking into account the students' strength of each individual standard and additional section, as the case may be, by keeping in view the teacher-students ratio 1:40 of the entire school if the teachers strength is required to be increased, the same has to be allowed, but in no case, the teachers' strength should be less than the number of standards including the additional sections. If more teachers are thus sanctioned keeping in view the over all strength of the school, the authorities of the school should create additional section in respect of any particular Standard according to the need and convenience keeping in view the standard of education. This requirement is not only in respect of Aided Schools or Government Schools, but also in respect of any Private Recognised School. In other words, this ratio is to be maintained for any school which requires recognition. (5) It would be obviously open to the Government to formulate appropriate norms in consonance with the above observation and provisions of the Constitution." That Full Bench decision has been followed by the learned Single Judge, incidentally, who was also a party to the Full Bench and the redeployment order has been set aside. (5) It would be obviously open to the Government to formulate appropriate norms in consonance with the above observation and provisions of the Constitution." That Full Bench decision has been followed by the learned Single Judge, incidentally, who was also a party to the Full Bench and the redeployment order has been set aside. In the above stated factual matrix of the issue, when the law is settled by the Full Bench, we are of the view that filing of an appeal by the Authority is nothing but an exercise in futility. Hence this Writ Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.No.3 of 2007 is also dismissed. No costs.? 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. 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 Devarulam Pastorate, Thirunelveli District / 1st respondent in W.A.(MD) No.70/2012 was approved or not, notwithstanding the observation 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 the said observations, the department had chosen to approve the appointment of the said teachers. 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. 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 …. 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.NA.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 existence 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.'' 8. But, when the W.A.(MD)No.76 of 2019 and batch was heard, it was submitted by the respondents that the concerned authorities have passed transfer orders / deputation orders, thereby posted the surplus teacher in the needy place. However, the minority schools submitted that would affect their religious minority character and also would amount to interference in their internal management. Moreover, the management also submitted that they could not pass any transfer / deputation orders, even if it is passed, the teachers are not obeying. This would indicate that serious steps should be taken to address the issue of surplus. Moreover, the management also submitted that they could not pass any transfer / deputation orders, even if it is passed, the teachers are not obeying. This would indicate that serious steps should be taken to address the issue of surplus. Therefore, the Division Bench has passed an order that no more fresh appointments and approval should not be granted to any surplus Teachers. Moreover the respondents have preferred a writ appeal in W.A.(MD) No. 1524 of 2019 against the order of the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P. (MD) No. 16913 of 2018 and the same is pending. 9. Since the writ appeal is filed and the same in pending, there is no willful disobedience by the respondents. Hence the Contempt Petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected sub application is closed.