IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 22.9.06 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.34732/2006 & M.P.No.1/2006 Dr.K.Sumathy .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamilnadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006. 3.The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tiruchirappalli Region, Tiruchirappalli 620 002. 4.The Secretary, T.B.M.L.College, Porayar 609 307, Nagapattinam District. 5.Mrs.Britta Jasmine .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from appointing or approving any appointment in one post of Lecturer in the Department of Tamil of the 4th respondent's College. For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Kathiravan For Respondents: Mr.P.Gopi Raja, GA for R1 to R3 ORDER The writ petition is filed for a direction forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from appointing or approving any appointment in one post of Lecturer in Department of Tamil in the 4th respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ college. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed in the 4th respondent college as Lecturer in Tamil by order dated 18.10.85. when the said appointment was not approved, the petitioner has moved this Court in W.P.No.6382/1991 and according to her, pending writ petition, she had the benefit of stay. By virtue of that, she has continued in the said post. Ultimately, the writ petition came to be dismissed by order dated 30.4.97. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that as against the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner has filed an appeal in W.A.No.644/97 which is pending before the Division Bench of this Court. The point which is agitated by the petitioner in the writ appeal is that her appointment in the year 1985 was within the sanctioned strength and therefore, her appointment has to be approved. 4. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is conferred with one post of Lecturer in Tamil and when the appeal is pending, the proposal of the 4th respondent in filling up one post of Lecturer in Tamil by somebody else, will affect the interest of the petitioner and hence, the present writ petition is filed for a direction as stated above. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate taking notice on behalf of the respondent. 6. On the face of it, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Admittedly, as against the rejection or approval in respect of the appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner has already moved this Court and the matter is pending before the Division Bench. While so, simply because now a new post is created in the 4th respondent/College, it does not mean that the 4th respondent should not make any appointment till the petitioner's right is decided in the writ appeal. Suffice it to state that if the petitioner succeeds in the writ appeal, she will be always entitled for the benefits of appointment from the original date of appointment. 7. In view of the same, I find that there is absolutely nothing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ap To 1.The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, State of Tamilnadu, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006. 3.The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tiruchirappalli Region, Tiruchirappalli 620 002. +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr 44869 +1cc to Mr.Veera Kathiravan,Advocate Sr 44605 NG (CO) km/29.9. W.P.No.34732/2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/