The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the second and third respondents herein to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the original date of his appointment i.e., 01.06.1996 instead of 07.07.1999 and disburse the grant-in-aid towards petitioner's salary and allowances with effect from the said date with all attendant benefits.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Physical Director on 01.06.1996 in the fourth respondent college. When one M.Francis retired from service, fourth respondent wrote to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, seeking qualification approval. The University granted qualification approval by Letter No. MSU/CD/Q.A/2/97, dated 17.11.1997. Thereafter, fourth respondent sent a proposal to the third respondent for approval of the petitioner's appointment. Respondents 2 and 3 informed the 4th respondent that prior approval for petitioner's appointment was not obtained and therefore, did not approve his appointment from 01.06.1996. The second respondent, by his proceedings, dated 07.07.1999, permitted the fourth respondent College to fill up the post of Physical Director from 07.07.1999, by promoting the petitioner. The third respondent, by proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.EE2/11470/99, dated 19.8.1999, informed the fourth respondent that the petitioner can be appointed as Physical Director with effect from 07.07.1999. As per the said approval, the petitioner's salary was disbursed as Physical Director from 07.07.1999.

3. According to petitioner, he sent a representation, dated 31.01.2000 through Madurai Kamaraj and Manonmaniam Sundaranar Universities Teachers Association seeking to approve his appointment/promotion from 01.6.1996, the original date of his appointment/promotion as Physical Director. The second respondent by his proceedings, dated 22.02.2000, bearing Reference No.O.Mu.No.5827/F4/2000, replied to the effect that the petitioner's case for approval from 01.6.1996 is pending before this Court. According to petitioner, the said statement is wrong. The writ petition filed by him related to fixing scale of pay in the post of Assistant Physical Director. According to petitioner, he made several representations and no orders were passed. He retired from service on 31.5.2000. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court with the above prayer.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on following Judgments:

(i) W.A.No.191 of 2006, dated 23.01.2008 [S.Vincent Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others], whereinin paragraph 4, it has been held as follows:

4. From the above, though there is upgradation in scales of Librarians, Directors/Instructors of Physical Education on the basis of the recommendation of the University Grants Commission was brought vide G.O.Ms.No.524 Education dated 18.3.1983, subsequently the said G.O. was modified through G.O.Ms.No.393 Education dated 16.4.1985. Para 9 of the G.O.Ms.No.393 Education dated 16.4.1985 states that as the Physical Training Instructors who are now in the scales of Rs.350-600 have not been brought under the University Grants Commission scale of pay so far, they need not be brought within the purview of the orders issued. Therefore, though the appellant has stated that he has agitated his claim that he was in service, no particulars were given, except filing this writ petition seeking to extend the benefits of pay scales of the UGC to the Assistant Physical Director or Instructors. Therefore, the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We see no reason to entertain the writ appeal. The writ appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. No costs.

(ii) 2008 (8) SCC 648(Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh), wherein inparagraph 7, it has been held as follows:

"7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the excepti