Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. VAIDYANATHAN, MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, JJ.
Dr. S. Selvakumari - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.A. No . 3105 of 2021
Decided On : 06-06-2022
Appointment - Lecturer (Tamil) - Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, Section 10; Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976, Rule 7 and 11 - The court found that the appellant was not appointed to a sanctioned post and thus the claim of a vested right to grant is clearly misplaced and contrary to the grant-in-aid code. The court dismissed the Writ Appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, appointed as Lecturer (Tamil) in a college, sought approval of her appointment and grant of salary from the Government. The court found that the appellant was not appointed to a sanctioned post and thus the claim of a vested right to grant is clearly misplaced and contrary to the grant-in-aid code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was not appointed to a sanctioned post and thus the claim of a vested right to grant is clearly misplaced and contrary to the grant-in-aid code. The court dismissed the Writ Appeal.
Issues: The main issues were the appellant's appointment to a sanctioned post, the approval of her appointment, and the grant of salary from the Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was not appointed to a sanctioned post and thus the claim of a vested right to grant is clearly misplaced and contrary to the grant-in-aid code.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patents Act praying to set aside the order of this Court in W.P.No.83 of 2020 dated 12.03.2021)
Mohammed Shaffiq, J.
1. This intra Court appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the prayer of the appellant to approve her appointment as Lecturer (Tamil) in Meston College of Education ( hereinafter referred to as "4th Respondent/College") with effect from 01.07.2008.
2. This is the third round of litigation. It may therefore be necessary to set out briefly the facts and history of the litigation:
i) The 4th Respondent/College is an 100% aided Minority College. It had 11 sanctioned posts, the appellant was admittedly appointed after the University of Madras had permitted to introduce Tamil as an optional subject for the academic year 2007-08. Pursuant to which, the 4th Respondent/ College had called for application to the post of Lecturers in Tamil vide advertisement dated 20.05.2007.
ii) Pursuant to the above advertisement, the appellant herein had submitted her application to the 4th Respondent/ College, which is a 100% Aided Minority Institution offering B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses. The University of Madras to which the 4th Respondent/College was affiliated, constituted a Selection Committee to conduct interview to the said post viz., Lecturer (Tamil). The Selection Committee vide Minutes of the Meeting dated 14.08.2007 submitted its recommendation in favour of the appellant to the Management, which was accepted and the appellant was appointed as Lecturer(Tamil) by order dated 17.08.2007.
iii) The Management forwarded its proposal to the University of Madras seeking approval of the appellant's qualification vide communication dated 17.08.2007 in Letter No.AI/Tamil Optional/Affiliation/2007. However, the same was declined by the Registrar, University of Madras vide Letter No.AII/NR/Meston/Tamil/App.Qual/2007/1947 dated 07.09.2007, for the reason that the appellant did not possess M.Phil. /Ph.D in Education, which is the prescribed qualification for Lecturers. In response to the above, the 4th Respondent/ College vide letter dated 12.09.2007 intimated that the appellant was pursuing her M.Phil., from Periyar University, thus, the Management of the 4th Respondent/ College requested permission to allow the appellant to handle Tamil subject for the academic year 2007-08, which was granted by the University of Madras vide communication dated 12.12.2007.
(iv) Pursuant thereto, the University of Madras granted permission to the 4th Respondent/ College to introduce Tamil as an additional optional subject in B.Ed., Programme from the academic year 2007-08 within the sanctioned strength of 120, subject to the condition that the appellant would appoint qualified teacher before the end of the academic year.
(v) The 4th Respondent/ College sent proposals to the Director of Collegiate Education/ 2nd Respondent requesting sanctioning of the post of Assistant Professor in Tamil. The University of Madras vide order dated 07.09.2007 informed the 4th Respondent/ College that the University is unable to consider the approval of qualification of the appellant for the appointment of Lecturer since she does not possess M.Phil. /Ph.D. in Education as per the qualification prescribed for the teachers in Education Colleges.
(vi) It is the case of the appellant that subsequent thereto, the appellant had acquired the requisite qualification and made several representations to the 4th Respondent/ College requesting approval of her qualification as she had acquired her M.Phil., Education Degree and to sanction the post, disburse the grant and fix the scale of pay in terms of UGC norms and other benefits from the date on which she fulfilled the requisite educational qualification.
(vii) A writ petition in W.P.No.39010 of 2015 was filed by the appellant challenging the order of the University of Madras vide Letter No.AII/NR/Meston/Tamil/App.Qual/20
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the claim of a vested right to grant is misplaced and contrary to the grant-in-aid code if the appellant was not appointed to a sanctioned pos....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the government is not obligated to pay the salary of an individual appointed in a non-sanctioned post from the government grant.
It was also made clear by this court in said case that Universities are not obliged and expected to approve appointments made against non-existent posts.
The Court emphasized the importance of complying with court orders and held that non-compliance without a valid reason is contemptuous.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
