High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHA KUMAR
Dr. S. Sukumaran
Versus
The State Of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary Higher Education & Others
Writ Petition No.11512 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012
Decided on : 11-06-2012
Mandamus - Appointment as Lecturer in Botany - Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 - Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 - W.P.No.23539 of 2009, dated 18.01.2010, Writ Appeal Nos.92 and 93 of 2008, dated 6.1.2010, Writ Appeal No.2345 of 2011, dated 5.3.2012
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to approve his appointment as Lecturer in Botany in a college, citing his qualifications and the availability of a sanctioned post. The court had previously directed the respondents to verify the appointment but the order was not obeyed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, appointed in a sanctioned post in a minority college, did not require prior permission from the department. The court referred to previous judgments and directed the approval of the petitioner's appointment and payment of salary and benefits.
Issues: Entitlement of the petitioner to approval of appointment, necessity of prior permission from the department, and non-compliance with previous court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner, appointed in a sanctioned post in a minority college, did not require prior permission from the department. Previous judgments supported the petitioner's entitlement to approval of appointment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed with a direction to approve the petitioner's appointment as Lecturer in Botany and to pay salary and benefits within three months.
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to approve the petitioner's appointment as Lecturer in Botany in the fourth respondent-college with effect from 16.06.2008 with all monetary benefits, in the light of the order made in W.P.No.23539 of 2009, dated 18.01.2010.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Lecturer in the department of Botany in the fourth respondent aided minority college. The petitioner passed M.Sc., and M.Phil degrees with First Class. The petitioner also passed Doctor of Philosophy from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in March, 2004. He was initially appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Botany (Self Finance course) in the fourth respondent-college on 13.9.2006. Thereafter, aided vacancy arose in the fourth respondent-college due to retirement of one D. Christian Babu and in the said aided vacancy, the petitioner was appointed by the fourth respondent-college, which is a sanctioned post. The number of sanctioned posts available in the Department of Botany is six. The said fact is established by the second respondent, by order dated 18.5.2000 and thereafter, there was no reduction of students strength and no further staff fixation was also made by the department till date.
3. On 14.9.2009, the petitioner sent a representation to the second respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 16.6.2008 and the management of the fourth respondent-college also submitted the proposal seeking approval. The petitioner again submitted another representation on 8.10.2009 and prayed for approval so as to enable the petitioner to get his salary. The second respondent having failed to take any action, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23539 of 2009 before this Court and prayed for a direction to approve the petitioner's appointment as Lecturer in Botany in the fourth respondent-college with effect from 16.6.2008, with all monetary benefits. This Court, by order dated 18.1.2010 directed the respondents to verify the strength particulars and pass orders.
4. The said order was not obeyed by the second respondent and the petitioner submitted a representation under the RTI, for which a reply was given to the petitioner stating that as against the order passed by this Court on 18.1.2010, the writ appeal is filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no writ appeal is filed and no notice was served on the petitioner till date and the matter in issue is already covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.92 and 93 of 2008, dated 6.1.2010, which was followed by me in W.P.No.19715 of 2009, dated 31.3.2011 and the recent Division Bench judgment made in Writ Appeal No.2345 of 2011, dated 5.3.2012.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner having been appointed in the sanctioned vacancy in private minority aided college, in a retirement vacancy from 16.6.2008 and he being fully qualified for being appointed as Lecturer in the department of Botany as per the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and Rules, 1976, the University can verify the qualifications of the petitioner and the fourth respondent college being a minority college, there is no need to get permission to fill up the post in terms of Rule 11 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976. The learned counsel also submitted that the matter in issue being covered by the judgment, the second respondent cannot contend that the earlier order dated 18.1.2010 is challenged in writ appeal and in fact, no writ appeal is filed or pending.
7. When the writ petition was posted for admission on 24.4.2012, the learned Special Government Pleader was directed to take notice for the respondents and verify whether the matter is covered by the judgment or not and he was also directed to get instructions as to whether any writ appeal is pending as against the order dated 18.1.2010. The learned Spe
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.