Prior approval of competent authority was mandatory.

AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.

This writ Appeal is directed against the order dated June 26, 1996 of N. Y. Balasubramanian, J., in w.p. No. 13013 of 1985. The petitioner leollege is the appellant.

2. The Ayya Nadar Janaki Ammal College at Sivakasi, filed the writ petition to call for the records of the 3rd respondentl]Private Colleges Appellate Tribunal relating to its proceedings dated September 17, 1985 made in Second Appeal (TAC) No. 4 of 1982 and quash the same.

3. The short facts that are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:-The lst respondent A. Pandian was appointed as Dem-onstrator in Chemistry in a temporary vacancy on August 6, 1977. The order of appointment clearly said that the appointment was purely temporary for 1977-78. On the expiry of the one year period, his services came to an end on the closure of the college. He was paid vacation salary upto June 15, 1978. For the year 1978-79, a regular vacancy for the post of Demonstrator arose and the lst respondent was appointed on probation for two years with effect from July 5, 1978. An agreement in Form 7-A was entered into between the appellant and the lst respondent. As his work was not found satisfactory, the probation period was extended by one year with effect from July 5, 1980. This extension was challenged by the 1 st respondent in appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd 21 respondent dismissed the appeal. In the returns submitted by the appellant to the University, the Ist respondent was shown only as a probationer. On June 29, 198 1, the appellant college committee meeting was held to decide the service of the lst respondent and the majority of the members present decided to discharge him. On July 1, 1981 the order of termination of the I st respondent from service with effect from July 4, 1981 was issued.

4. The 1st respondent preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent under Section20 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the College 34 Act). Tle said appeal was contested by the appellant by filing a counter statement. The 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal on December 26, 1981. A second Appeal was filed before the 3rd respondent/private colleges Tribunal ' The 3rd respondent held that the Ist respondent is 4(only a probationer and that the order of termination is not penal but only a termination simpliciter and that even in the case of termination si

"liciter, prior approval of the competent., authority is necessary. Being aggrieved by the order of the 3rd respondent, the management of the college preferred the writ petition to quash the order of the 3rd respondent dated September 17, 1985 made in Second Appeal TAC No..4 of 1982.

5. The following grounds were raised in the writ petition :

a) The interpretation given by the 3rd respondent on the words "or otherwise terminated" occurring in Section19(1) of the Act is unsustainable in law and without any substance.

b) The 3rd respondent ought to have read the said words in ejusdem geneds with the preceding words "dismissed, removed or reduced in rank" and held that only punitive termination will come within the ambit of the said words.

c) A specific provision for getting prior approval of the competent authority in the agreement in orm -prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, is conspicuously absent in dw College Act.

6. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf on the 2nd respondent by its Deputy Secretary, Education Department.

7. Before the learned Judge, elaborate arguments were advanced by the learned counsel ap'ther side. The learned Judge, on a pearing on ei detailed consideration of the rival submissions and also on a consideration of the authorities cited, came to the conclusion that Section19 of the College Act would squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand and therefore, the prior approval of the competent authority is a condition precedent before putting an end to the services of the 1 st responde