Constitutional validity of Rule upheld.

D.Murugesan, J.

1. Both the above appeals arise out of a common order of the learned single Judge dated 6.1.92 made in W.P.Nos.1 1762 of 1989 and 6693 of 1990. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No. 11762 of 1989 and the fourth respondent in W.P.No.6693 of 1990, filed by the management of the minority institution, has filed the present writ appeals. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as in W.A.No.972 of 1992.

2. In both the writ appeals, the following points arise for our consideration. (1)Whether Rule 11(4)(i) and (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 framed under Section 53 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 is ultra vires of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the said rule is also made applicable to the minority educational institutions? (2)Having framed the said Rule, whether the State Government is empowered to relax the same?

3. The factual matrix that gives rise to the filing of the writ appeals are as follows. The appellant was appointed as a Typist in the year 1979 in St.Jude's College, Thoothur, Kanyakumari District, namely the fourth respondent. She had also passed the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers (Part-I) and was fully qualified to hold the post of Assistant. She was eligible to be considered for promotion to the said post under Rule 11(4)(i) of the Rules as she was the senior most non-teaching staff. Sometime during the year 1987, a post of Assistant fell vacant and the Secretary of the minority institution decided to fill up the said post by appointing one K.Damy, the fifth respondent by direct recruitment and forwarded the proposals to the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, the third respondent for approval. On coming to know of the same, the appellant made a representation to the third respondent on 23.4.87. The third respondent in his communication dated 8.6.87 refused to approve the appointment of the fifth respondent with a further direction that the appellant should be promoted in accordance with seniority. Though such a direction was issued, the fourth respondent did not promote the appellant and hence, the appellant once again made a complaint to the Director of Collegiate Education, the second respondent as to the inaction on the part of the fourth respondent institution to promote the appellant to the post of Assistant. The appellant in the meantime, came to know of the relaxation of the rules granted by the Government, the first respondent, for the appointment of the fifth respondent directly to the post of Assistant. A further representation was made by the appellant on 23.3.89 expressing her grievance over the appointment of the fifth respondent directly to the post of Assistant as well as the relaxation given to his appointment. Since no action was taken, the appellant filed W.P.No. 11762 of 1989 for a direction to the fourth respondent to promote her to the post of Assistant with a further prayer for payment of arrears of salary. While the said writ petition was pending, the fourth respondent viz., the minority institution filed W.P.No.6693 of 1990 for a writ of declaration declaring Rule 11(4)(i) and (ii) of the Rules as ultra vires of the Constitution of India, illegal and void. Both the writ petitions were heard together by the learned single Judge and by common order dated 6.1.92, the learned Judge dismissed W.P.No. 11762 of 1989 and allowed W.P.No.6693 of 1990 by striking down the rule on the ground that the said rule offends Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the said common order, the present writ appeals have been filed.

4. Weheard Mr.K.Chandru, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the fourth respondent institution, Mr.V.Raghupathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.C.Jagadeesh Chandran appearing for the fifth respondent.

5. Before we embark