IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No. 11854 of 2025 and WMP.No.13416 of 2025

1.DR.S.DAPHNE REBEKAL

2.DR.S.MICHLIN RUPHINA MARAGATHAM ... Petitioners Vs.

1.THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, I.A.S.E CAMPUS, 577, ANNA SALAI, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI-600 015

2.THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, TIRUNELVELI REGION, TIRUNELVELI

3.THE CORRESPONDENT-SECRETARY, SARAH TUCKER COLLEGE, TIRUNELVELI ... Respondents PRAYER:

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent made in E.File No.TNDCE/219/2025-F4 dated 19.3.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to approve the appointment of the petitioners as Asst.Professor of chemistry in the sanctioned vacancies and pay the salary and arrears of salary and all other monetary, attendance and service benefits w.e.f. their date of appointment i.e., 28.4.2023 For Petitioners : Mr.E.Martin Jayakumar For Respondents For R1 & 2 : Mr.C.Gauthamraj, Government Advocate

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the

1st respondent made in E.File No.TNDCE/219/2025-F4 dated 19.3.2025, thereby rejecting the proposal to approve the petitioners’ appointment in the third respondent college.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same issue was dealt with by the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of this Court in a writ petition in WP.(MD)No.6073 of 2025 and by order order dated 14.07.2025, the respondents therein were directed to pass orders for approving the appointment of the person concerned.

3. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 & 2.

4. It is seen that this Court already passed order related to the same issue arising in this writ petition and the relevant portion of the said order passed in WP.(MD)No.6073 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025 is extracted hereunder:

“6. All the reasons assigned in the present impugned order are similar to that of the rejection order in the case of The Secretary, Fatima College, Madurai Vs. State of Tamilnadu, Department of Higher Education in WP.MD.No.4636 & 4640 of 2021 dated 30.03.2022. Even this reason was considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of The Secretary, St. Ignatius College of Education, Palayamkottai – 627 002, Tirunelveli District vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009 and two others [W.P.(MD)No.25931 of 2019, dated 17.04.2020], which reads as follows:-

“When the petitioner institution, which is the Minority institution, had sought for an approval for appointment of one Mr.S.Sebastian as Record Clerk, the same came to be returned through the impugned order dated 26.11.2018 on the ground that there was no proper advertisement published in the newspaper before the appointment was made. The said order dated 26.11.2018 has been put under challenge in the present writ petition.

2.The status of a minority institution has already come up for consideration before the Hon-ble Apex Court and in view of the protection granted therein, they continue under such protection in view of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. When the respondents had, in an identical situation, refused grant of approval to a non teaching staff insofar as similarly placed minority institution on the ground of lack of publicity for appointment, this Court by order dated 16.08.2019 passed in W.P.Nos. 17511 and 17518 of 2019 in the case of Secretary Nirmala College for Women (Autonomous) Vs., The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary and two others had set aside the rejection by holding that insistence on requirement of advertisement for appointment on nonteaching staff in the minority institution is without the authority of law. The relevant portion of