COMMON ORDER

Since both the writ petitions are filed challenging the same impugned order passed in G.O.Ms.No.49, both the writ petitions were taken up together and a common order is passed.

2.(i) The writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.2220 of 2016 is filed by M.V.Ekanathan for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned G.O.Ms.No.49, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 14.05.2002 and to direct the 3rd respondent to approve the petitioner's appointment as Gardener in the 4th respondent College. Pending writ petition, the 3rd respondent passed an order, dated 18.03.2016 declining to grant approval. Hence, the petitioner amended the prayer to quash the said impugned order, dated 18.03.2016 as well.

2.(ii) The writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.2221 of 2016 is filed by R.S.Ganeshbabu for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned G.O.Ms.No.49, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 14.05.2002, passed by the 1st respondent and to direct the 3rd respondent to approve the petitioner's appointment as Waterman in the 4th respondent College. In W.P.(MD)No.2221 of 2016, the petitioner was appointed as Waterman, but he died on 09.11.2019. Hence, the substitution petition is filed and the same is allowed.

3. The brief facts of the case as stated in the affidavit are that the

4th respondent College is a linguistic minority college established in the year 1967 and the 1st respondent vide letter dated 24.02.1977 had declared the college as minority college. The college is governed by the Tamilnadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976, except Sections 19 to 23. As on today, six approved posts of Sweeper, two approved posts in each category of Watchman, Waterman and Gardener and one approved post of Scavenger are vacant in the 4th respondent college. In a catena of decision, this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that there is no need to seek prior approval for filling up the vacancy in approved posts. Out of 14 posts, in the above category, 13 posts are vacant and some of the posts became vacant in the year 2000 and till date, the same are not filled up. The petitioners had passed 10th standard and also passed foundation course and they are eligible to be appointed as Gardener and Waterman.

4. The petitioner M.V.Ekanathan was working in the 4th respondent college from 17.01.2002 on consolidated pay basis. On 21.12.2015, the 4th respondent appointed the petitioner M.V.Ekanathan as Gardener in the vacancy caused due to the promotion of one N.R.P.Janaganbabu. The petitioner R.S.Ganeshbabu was working in the 4th respondent college from 14.09.2000 on consolidated pay basis. On 21.12.2015, the 4th respondent appointed the petitioner R.S.Ganeshbabu as Waterman in the vacancy caused due to the promotion of one M.S.Rajendran. The petitioners joined the regular service and were regularly working in the 4th respondent college. The 4th respondent has forwarded the proposal for approval and the same is pending. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent has orally informed that the petitioners' appointment will not be approved unless the prior permission from the Government is obtained. Further, the 3rd respondent had informed the College that the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.49, P & AR Department, dated 14.05.2002 and decided that the Group D posts including the posts of Sweeper, Scavenger, Cleaner and Gardener shall be outsourced and hence, they are not in a position to give approval. The contention of the petitioners is that the said G.O. is not applicable to the 4th respondent college which is a minority college, but relying on the said G.O., the respondents had declined to grant approval. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. The 3rd respondent had filed counter affidavit in W.P.(MD)No.

2220 of 2016 stating that petitioner was initially appointed as Gardener without getting prior permission from the 3rd respondent. Moreover, the 4th respondent's proposal did not mention the details about