1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:19.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD) No.1088 of 2011 in W.P.(MD).No.174 of 2009 1.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai. 2.The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli. :Appellants/Respondents 1 & 2 -Vs- 1.J.Devaraj Selvakumar :1st respondent/Petitioner 2.The Secretary, St. John's College, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. :2nd respondent/3rd respondent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order, dated 27.04.2011, made in W.P.(MD).No.174 of 2009 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Prayer in WP(MD)No.174 of 2009 and MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009:Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.41613/F4/2008 dated 02.12.2008, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to approve the petitioner's appointment as Lecturer in History in the 3rd respondent college with effect from 16.07.2001. For appellants :Mr.Mr.R.Anandharaj,Government Advocate for Mr.K.Mahendran,Special Government Pleader For 1st respondent :Mr.R.Subramanian For 2nd respondent :Mr.P.Thiyagarajan JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J.) The challenge in this writ appeal is to the order passed by the Writ Court, dated 27.04.2011, in W.P.(MD).No.174 of 2009, allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein by setting aside the order passed by the first appellant herein, dated 02.12.2008, with a consequential direction to the appellants herein to grant approval for the appointment of the first respondent herein in the third respondent college with effect from the date of his appointment i.e., on 16.07.2001. 2.The learned Government, challenging the order of the writ Court, mainly contended that as per Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules 1976, the number of teachers employed in a college shall not exceed the number of posts fixed by the Director from time to time, with reference to the academic requirements and norms of work load prescribed by the respective Universities and overall financial considerations and as such the appellants are having overall control in respect of strength of teachers in the private colleges and as such, it is incumbent on the management of the college viz., the second respondent herein to seek prior approval for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the appointment of the first respondent herein as lecturer in the department of history. It is further contended that the first respondent has no locus standi to challenge the order of the first appellant and only the management of the college viz., the second respondent herein, is having locus standi to question or challenge the impugned order in the writ petition. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that both the aspects have not been properly considered by the writ Court and the writ Court wrongly held that the management is not required to get prior approval for appointment of the first respondent herein as lecturer in the history department as the said post is only a sanctioned post and as such he prays for dismissal of the order of the writ Court. 3.Per contra, Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the writ Court. It is contended that the appellants have already fixed the strength of the teachers and further the post filled up by appointing the first respondent herein as lecturer in the history department is only due to the retirement of its predecessor and as such for filling up a sanctioned post, the management is not required to get any prior approval from the appellants herein. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would mainly place reliance on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.93 & 94 of 2008, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.4960 & 14450 of 1997, dated 10.07.2007. It is also submitted that even the said order subsequently implemented by the appellants and as such in respect of the appointment involved in this matter, finality was reached and position is well settled. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent college would contend that the management has rightly appointed the first respondent herein as lecturer in the history department in respect of the sanctioned post and as the teachers strength of the college was already fixed by the authorities concerned viz., the appellants herein, there is no question of obtaining any prior approval for the appointment of the first respondent herein. 5.We have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record and also the impugned writ Court order. 6.The core question involved in this matter is whether the management of a private college viz., the second respondent herein has to get prior permission for the appointment of the first respondent herein as lecturer in the history department, in respect of filling up a sanctioned post. At the outset, it is to be stated that the writ Court has considered the matter elaborately by placing reliance on the earlier decisions of this Court rendered by a learned Single Judge as well as confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court. We are of the view that it is relevant to refer straight away the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, on this aspect, in W.A.Nos.93 & 94 of 2008, dated 06.01.2010, wherein it is held by the Division Bench as hereunder: "The learned single Judge has dealt with both the above said writ petitions together and by following the decision of this Court rendered in W.P.No.28396 of 2004, dated 29.03.2006, the learned Judge has categorically held that once appointment of a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 person in a sanctioned post is made in accordance with law, no prior permission from the Director of Collegiate Education is required. While holding so, the learned Judge has quashed the impugned proceedings, dated 28.02.1997 and directed the appellants to approve the writ petitioner's (C.Karunakaran) appointment from 02.07.1990 with all consequential service benefits." 7.The writ Court has also extracted the Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rule, 1976 and thereafter, held that there is absolutely no substance in the impugned order and the same is, on the face of it, not sustainable in law and set aside the impugned order in the writ petition, holding that the management need not get any prior approval for the appointment of the first respondent herein as lecturer in the history department. It is also specifically stated in the impugned order of the writ Court that the first respondent herein is eligible and qualified as the same is not disputed by the department. Apart from the above factors, it is not disputed that the second respondent is a minority institution. 8.In view of the reasons stated above, we are of the view that that the appellants have not made out any ground warranting interference in the order of the writ Court. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai. 2.The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Gcg RP/08.11.11/3P/4C. Judgment in W.A (MD) No.1088 of 2011 19.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/