Government-aided boys' schools cannot refuse deployment of women teachers: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that government-aided boys' schools cannot refuse to accommodate women teachers solely because of their gender [Saratha v The Chief Educational Officer & Ors.].

In an order dated July 3, Justice B Pugalendhiobserved that neither the statutory framework nor the rules governing aided schools prohibit the deployment of women teachers to boys' schools.

Emphasising that the school's objection had no legal basis, the Court observed,

"Neither the Act [Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018] nor the Rules [Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023] prohibit the deployment of a woman teacher to a boys' school. In the absence of any statutory prohibition, the objection raised by the third respondent has no legal foundation and could not have formed the basis for declining to implement the deployment order."

The ruling came in a petition filed by a woman drawing teacher who was declared surplus during the staff fixation exercise for the 2024-25 academic year. She was then deployed by the Chief Educational Officer (CEO) to a government-aided boys' higher secondary school where a sanctioned vacancy existed.

However, the school refused to accommodate her, contending that it was an all-boys institution with no female teaching or non-teaching staff and lacked the infrastructural facilities required for a woman teacher. Accepting the school's stand, the CEO subsequently redeployed her to another aided school.

The teacher challenged this decision before the Court.

During an earlier round of litigation, she had also filed an undertaking before the High Court stating that she would not seek any special treatment or additional facilities if deployed to the boys' school.

Although the Court had directed the CEO to reconsider her request on its merits, the authority again relied on the school's objections and reaffirmed the redeployment, prompting the present petition.

The Court rejected the school's justification.

"The only objection raised by the third respondent (the school) for refusing to accommodate the petitioner (woman teacher) is that it is a boys' school and that adequate infrastructural facilities are not available for a woman teacher. Such an objection cannot be accepted," the judge said.

The Court further held that a school's refusal to accept a surplus teacher does not cancel or invalidate the deployment order.

It emphasised that once a competent authority issues a deployment order under the statutory rules, the management of an aided school cannot sit in judgment over that decision.

"Once a deployment is made by the competent authority in exercise of the powers conferred under the Rules, the management has no authority to sit in appeal over such decision or determine for itself whether the deployed teacher should be accommodated. The Act does not leave such noncompliance without consequences," said the Court.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the CEO's order and directed the authority to reconsider the teacher's deployment in accordance with the existing laws within four weeks.

Additionally, the Court cautioned that delays in issuing deployment orders should not be allowed to undermine the statutory scheme for redeploying surplus teachers. It observed that permitting delayed deployment orders to remain unimplemented would leave surplus teachers in schools where they were no longer required while vacancies elsewhere remained unfilled.

Hence, the Court additionally directed the Director of School Education to examine the reasons for the delay in issuing the teacher's deployment order and to consider appropriate action against responsible officials.

Further, it directed the authority to examine whether proceedings should be initiated against the aided school management for refusing to comply with the deployment order.

Advocate A Balaji appeared for the teacher (petitioner).

Additional Government Pleader M Sarangan represented the State authorities (Chief Educational Officer and District Educational Officer).

Senior Advocate C Arul Vadivel along with advocate M Pozhilan appeared for the aided school management.

[Read Order]