The main legal point established in the judgment is that termination of an employee from a private college must comply with the statutory provisions, including obtaining prior approval of the competent authority, and decisions made by the management committee should be honored.

1. The petitioner, has sought for a mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to permit him to rejoin duty forthwith as Assistant Professor (Zoology) in Muslim Arts College, Thiruvithamcode.

2. Facts deduced from the supporting affidavit are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor of Zoology in the 3rd respondent college on 17.07.1987 and he joined duty on 20.07.1987. The college is recognised by Government of Tamilnadu and affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli. Due to some misunderstanding with his wife, a complaint was lodged by her against the petitioner and his parents, alleging that they demanded dowry from her parents. The learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, who tried the accused, by judgment dated 29.09.1999, convicted and sentenced the petitioner and his father to undergo imprisonment and also imposed fine. The petitioner, including his father filed Crl.A.No.81 of 1999 against the said judgment. During the pendency of the appeal the sentence was suspended and consequently, the petitioner and his father were enlarged on bail. Lateron, the appeal was transferred to this Court, Madras and converted into Crl.A.No.859 of 2002. This Court, by judgment dated 15.11.2002, set aside the conviction and sentence and, acquitted all the accused.

3. The petitioner has further contended that earlier on account of conviction by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, the Secretary, Muslim Arts College, Thiruvithamcode, the 3rd respondent suspended the petitioner from service, by his order dated 14.10.1999, with effect from 13.10.1999. A show cause notice dated 28.03.2000, was also issued calling upon the petitioner, as to why he should not be removed from service, with effect from 11.04.2000.

4. On the petitioner's representation dated 07.04.2000, requesting the 3rd respondent to keep the proposed punishment in abeyance till the disposal of the criminal appeal, the 3rd respondent stopped further proceedings. After a period of two years and two months, the petitioner was served with a letter dated 08.12.2001 stating that he had been terminated from service, from the date on which he was suspended.

5. Consequent to the acquittal by this Court on 15.11.2002, in Crl.A.No.859 of 2002, the petitioner has sent a registered representation dated 13.12.2002, seeking for reinstatement in service. As the said representation was not considered, the petitioner has preferred W.P.No.2659 of 2003, for a mandamus, directing the respondents to consider his representation. Accordingly, this Court by the order dated 29.01.2003, directed the Secretary, Muslim Arts College, Thiruvathamcode, the 3rd respondent college herein to consider the said representation and pass suitable orders within 12 weeks. Copy of the order was also sent to the 3rd respondent along with the lawyer's letter dated 15.02.2003. In response to the above, 3rd respondent gave a reply dated 01.03.2003 stating that the College Management Committee in its meeting dated 28.02.2003 has considered the case of the petitioner for reinstatement favourably and decided to give suitable chance in the forthcoming semester (since the then semester was to end in one month) and to contact the Secretary, in the next semester for favourable action. It is the further case of the petitioner that the next semester commenced on 16.06.2003. As the petitioner was not taken back to duty, he has sought for a mandamus, as stated supra.

6. In addition to the above pleadings, Mr.Ragatheesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that consequent to the judgment of this Court in Crl.A.No.859 of 2002, the management committee had already decided the case of the petitioner for reinstatement favourably and also assured that a chance would be given to the petitioner in the next semester in the year 2003 itself and in such circumstances, it is not open to the Management to deny reinstatement.

7. According to learned counsel