Maintainability and sanctioned post requirements bar repeated relief claims and judicial creation of staff posts.

A second writ petition seeking the same relief was not maintainable after the competent authority had rejected the school's representation by a reasoned order that was never challenged, and later representations did not revive the cause of action. The norms in G.O.Ms. No. 340 Education dated 01.04.1992 did not apply because the school was upgraded as a high school in 1988-89, outside the covered period, and the relevant student strength remained below 300. Rule 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Pay of Grant) Rules, 1977 permitted approval only for staff employed against sanctioned posts, so appointment to an unsanctioned post could not be approved. Reliance on G.O.Ms. No. 245 Education Department dated 21.02.1970 was misplaced, as courts cannot direct creation of posts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a second writ petition seeking the same relief was maintainable after the earlier rejection of the school's representation had attained finality. (ii) Whether the norms in G.O.Ms. No. 340 Education dated 01.04.1992 applied to the school for sanction of a Junior Assistant post. (iii) Whether appointment to a non-sanctioned post could be approved in view of Rule 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Pay of Grant) Rules, 1977. (iv) Whether reliance on G.O.Ms. No. 245 Education Department dated 21.02.1970 could justify sanction of the post and judicial direction to create it.

Issue (i): Whether a second writ petition seeking the same relief was maintainable after the earlier rejection of the school's representation had attained finality.

Analysis: The earlier writ petition had resulted only in a direction to consider the representation, and the competent authority thereafter rejected the request by a reasoned order. That rejection was not challenged. A later writ petition sought the same relief on the same factual basis. Subsequent representations did not generate a fresh cause of action, and the controversy had already been concluded in the earlier round.

Conclusion: The second writ petition was not maintainable and was an abuse of the process of the court.

Issue (ii): Whether the norms in G.O.Ms. No. 340 Education dated 01.04.1992 applied to the school for sanction of a Junior Assistant post.

Analysis: The Government Order applied to high schools opened in 1987-88 and earlier. The school had been upgraded as a high school in 1988-89. The student strength during the relevant period was below 300, and the later increase in strength was irrelevant under the governing norms.

Conclusion: G.O.Ms. No. 340 Education dated 01.04.1992 was not attracted to the school, and the claim based on it could not succeed.

Issue (iii): Whether appointment to a non-sanctioned post could be approved in view of Rule 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Pay of Grant) Rules, 1977.

Analysis: Rule 6(2) permits payment of staff grant only for qualified and admissible staff actually employed against sanctioned posts and whose appointments have been approved by the competent authority. The management had appointed the incumbent as Junior Assistant against a post that had not been sanctioned. Anticipatory appointment could not override the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: Approval of the appointment could not be granted for a non-sanctioned post.

Issue (iv): Whether reliance on G.O.Ms. No. 245 Education Department dated 21.02.1970 could justify sanction of the post and judicial direction to create it.

Analysis: The Government Order was intended for clerks already employed around 1964 and did not govern a Junior Assistant appointed in 1988-89 to an unsanctioned post. The power to create and sanction posts lies with the executive, and the court could not assume that function.

Conclusion: The reliance on G.O.Ms. No. 245 Education Department dated 21.02.1970 was misplaced, and the judicial direction to sanction the post was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the direction granting sanction for the post succeeded, and the school was not entitled to the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi: A second proceeding for the same relief cannot be entertained after an unchallenged rejection has attained finality, and courts cannot compel sanction of a post contrary to the governing grant norms and the executive's prerogative to create posts.

---