Writ Petitions concerning statutory rule violations are maintainable.

9.G.Rajarathinam (R9-Suo motu impleaded as per order dated 13.02.2025 in W.P.No.22755/2024) ....Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the fifth respondent relating to the proceedings dated 23.07.2024 bearing reference No.Nil with all consequential proceedings and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and to issue appropriate consequential directions to the respondent by enabling the petitioner to complete his tenure till 11.08.2025. (Prayer amended as per order dated 13.02.2025 in WMP.No.25897/2024 in W.P.No.22755/2024).

For Petitioner : Mr.NGR.Prasad for Mr.K.Srivasa Murthy For Respondents : Ms.Indhu Bala for R1, R2 & R4 Additional Government Pleader Mr.LSM Hasan Fizal for R3 Additional Government Pleader Mr.V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.Kandhan Duraisamy for R5, R6 & R8 Mr.E.J.Ayyappan for R7 Mr. R.P.Ruban Chakravarthy for R9

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the fifth respondent relating to the proceedings dated 23.07.2024 bearing reference No.Nil with all consequential proceedings and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and the issue appropriate consequential directions to the respondent by enabling the petitioner to complete his tenure till 11.08.2025.

2. Heard Mr.NGR Prasad and Mr.K.Srivasa Murthy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned |Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 5, 6 & 8 and Ms.Indhu Bala, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 & 4, Mr.LSM Hasan Fizal, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the third respondent, Mr.E.J.Ayyappan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the seventh respondent and Mr.R.P.Ruban Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 9^th respondent.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was nominated as the secretary to the eighth respondent College which is run by the fifth respondent Educational Agency. Originally the petitioner was nominated on adhoc basis and thereafter by a resolution he was appointed from 12.08.2022. Based on the said resolution, the second respondent had approved the said nomination and had permitted the petitioner to function as the Secretary for a period of three years. While so, suddenly by the impugned proceedings, the petitioner is removed from the office of the Secretary and the ninth respondent was appointed in the place of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner has the tenure up to 11.08.2025, he cannot be unilaterally removed by the fifth respondent Educational Agency. If the petitioner has to be removed, then the respondents have to comply with Rule 9 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976. As per the said Rule, the fifth respondent ought to have got the prior approval of the second respondent before removing the petitioner as Secretary.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 5, 6 & 8, by placing reliance on the resolution of the Agency, would submit that the petitioner was nominated by one of the member of the fifth respondent namely the society called as Varalakshmiammal Charitable Trust. By the resolution of the fifth respondent the said Varalakshmiammal Charitable Trust has since been removed as a member. Once the very membership is removed then the qualification of the petitioner to continue as the Secretary itself goes as per Rule 9 (1) of the said Rules. Therefore, by duly filing Form-6 for approval on 25.07.2024 the Secretary was changed. The new Secretary has also taken charge. Therefore, nothing remains t