Writ petition filed by college challenging the order of appellate authority dismissed.

1. The writ petition raises an interesting question as to the scope, ambit and interpretation of Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Private Colleges Act). The petitioner is a college at Sivakasi. The first respondent was employed as a demonstrator in Chemistry. He was appointed as a probationer in the subject Chemistry by an order dated 8. 1977 of the petitioner. The appointment was a temporary one for the academic year 1977-78 which ended on 35. 1978. The first respondent’s service came to an end on the expiry of the academic year 1977- 78. In the academic year 1978-79, a regular vacancy arose in the petitioner’s college. The first respondent was appointed in the post of demonstrator of Chemistry with effect from 7. 1978, and the first respondent also joined duty on 7. 1978. The first respondent was taken in as a probationer for a period of 2 years with effect from 7. 1978. An agreement in Form 7A prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Pri vate Colleges Rules, 1976 was entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent on 1. 1979. The petitioner extended the period of probation of the first respondent for a further period of one year from 7. 1980, by its order dated 5. 1980. The petitioner college considered the case of the first respondent for confirmation of his probation and decided not to confirm him in his post by its order dated 7. 1981. The first respondent was also relieved from service with effect from 7. 1981.

.2. The first respondent preferred an appeal before the second respondent against the order of termination of his service. The second respondent upheld the order of termination holding that the priod of probation prescribed by the petitioner- college is not in any way contrary to the agreement in Form 7A and it is not necessary for the petitioner-college to obtain prior approval of the competent authority before terminating the services of the probationer.

3. The first respondent filed a further appeal before the third respondent. The third respondent i.e. Private Colleges Appellate Tribunal, Madras (hereinafter called as Appellate Tribunal) held that the first respondent was a probationer on 7. 1981 when the services of the first respondent were terminated. The Appellate Tribunal held that the period of probation ended on the afternoon of 7. 1981 and hence, the first respondent must be considered as a probationer on the date of passing of the resolution by the petitioner college on 26. 1981 or on the date of the memorandum of the petitioner on 1. 7.1981 or on the date of the order on 7. 1981.

4. Mr. K.Chandru, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent though submitted that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal is not correct, it is unnecessary to probe the matter further and decide the question whether the first respondent was a probationer or not because the finding of the Appellate Tribunal was not challenged in a separate proceeding, and the case itself proceeded on the basis that the first respondent was a probationer on the date of his termination of the services.

.5. The Appellate Tribunal also held that the order of the termination is a simple order of termination and the order was not punitive in nature. Though the Appellate Tribunal held that the order of termination is only an order of termination simpliciter, the Appellate Tribunal further held that the order of termination passed by the petitioner-college was vitiated for want of prior approval of the competent authority. The Appellate Tribunal held that under Section 19(1) of the Private Colleges Act, the exp ression, ‘otherwise terminated’ would include the termination of the service simpliciter. According to the Tribunal, Section 19 of the Private Colleges Act would apply even to the case of a probationer and since the petitioner-college had not admittedly obtained necessary prior sanction of the competent authority before it passed the order of term