O R D E R

The petitioner was employed in the third respondent private college viz., Bishop Thorp College, Dharapuram as a lecturer in the Co-operation Department on 19.01.1987. He completed his probation on 19.01.1989 and has been in employment thereafter with R3 till 11.06.2004.

2. The college is self-financing and is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation Act), 1976 (in short 'Act') and the applicable Rules being the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation Rules), 1976 (in short 'Rules'). The terms of employment were governed by agreement dated 19.01.1987 between the petitioner and R3.

3. As a preliminary challenge to maintainability, learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the agreement is not in line with the stipulations contained in the statutory forms to be executed at the time of appointment of the lecturers. She would draw support from the aforesaid in advancing the legal submission that this writ petition is itself not maintainable since it concerns the interpretation of a private contract between the petitioner and R3 and is hence not amenable to Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. For the aforesaid purpose, she relies on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of J.Varghese Riju Vs. Directorate of Collegiate Education and four others in W.P. No.12391 of 2012 dated 17.09.2012. In that case, the writ petition was held to be non-maintainable, as what was questioned was the termination of service of the petitioner from Loyola College. The Court held that the terms of employment were contractual. Moreover, the learned Judge noted that the college was self-financing and the parties governed by a contract of personal service and hence, the same cannot be enforced in writ proceedings.

5. The aforesaid case is distinguishable for the reason that there was no appearance therein for the official respondents and the legal issue of whether the provisions of Section 25 of the Act and Rules would encompass self-financing colleges as well, was neither raised nor argued.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that, being a private college, the provisions of Section 25 would apply and consequently the procedure set out under Rule 16 as per which, notice should be given in Form No.8 for closure of a private college to the competent authority before 1st September of the year preceding the year in which the closure is proposed.

7. Rule 16 (2), Sub Rules (a) & (b) mandate that when a college is proposed to be closed, it must be ensured that the students who have already been admitted to such course are not deprived of the benefit of continuance in a particular course or class and steps must be taken to resolve the same and secondly, the names and details of the service of the Junior-most teachers as well as others who have been rendered surplus on account of the closure must be furnished to the competent authorities for consideration of re-deployment to colleges where there is a requirement.

8. In the present case, what is argued is that the procedure set out under Rule

16(2)(b) has not been followed and as such, the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of being considered for re-deployment till his subsequent employment, albeit at a far more junior level than his employment in R3. Had he been considered for re-deployment, there would have been continuity of employment and also advancement in career as well as increased pay scales.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a decision of this Court in the case of Jawahar College Staff Association Vs. University of Madras represented by its Registrar (1994 (1) MLJ 376).

'4. A reading of the above two provisions made is clear that whether a private college is an aided or an unaided college; whether it came into existence either before or after the date when the Act came into force makes no difference as long as it is a college which is maintained by an educational agency and approved by or a