IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

W.A.No.52 of 2026

and

C.M.P.No.609 of 2026

Bhaktavatsalam Polytechnic College,

Represented by its Chairman,

Kancheepuram – 631 552. ... Appellant

-Vs-

1. K.Varaprasath

2. K.Aishwarya

3. The State of Tamil Nadu,

Represented by its

Principal Secretary to Government,

Higher Education Department,

Fort St.George,

Chennai – 600 009.

4. The Commissioner,

Directorate of Technical Education,

Guindy,

Chennai – 600 025.

5. The P.T.Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Trust,

Vepery,

Chennai – 600 007. ... Respondents

PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, against the order dated 27.10.2025 in W.P.No.40298 of 2025.

For Appellant : Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Aishwarya S.Nathan For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan for Mr.C.Munisamy for R1 & R2 Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader for R3 & R4

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order dated

27.10.2025 made in W.P.No.40298 of 2025.

2. The respondents 1 & 2 were the writ petitioners and they were working as Lecturer (Chemistry) and Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering) respectively at the appellant Polytechnic College. They wanted to migrate from the appellant College to the fifth respondent College, hence they sought for such permission or NOC from the appellant College which orally seems to have been refused, whereas the fifth respondent College based on the vacancy available in the fifth respondent College have given consent / NOC to take them into the fold of the fifth respondent College as Lecturer for Chemistry as well as Mechanical Engineering respectively.

3. On the strength of the consent or NOC given by the transferee College alone since they sought for such approval of transfer from the official respondent, i.e., second respondent therein, it seems that, the second respondent therein has not acted upon and they kept the plea raised by the writ petitioners pending. Only at that juncture, respondents 1 & 2 filed the said writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent in the writ petition who is the fourth respondent herein, i.e., Commissioner of Directorate of Technical Education to give such approval for migration of the two teachers from the appellant College to fifth respondent College.

4. The said mandamus was ordered and the writ petition was allowed by the writ Court through the impugned order.

5. The main reason stated by the writ Court in the impugned order for allowing the writ petition is that, in view of the import of G.O.(Ms)No.344, Education, Science and Technology Department dated 26.03.1984, the Directorate of College Education ought to have approved the migration of the services of the writ petitioners from one Institution to another Institution without seeking NOC from the transferor College. That is the reason why and because of the said ground, the learned Judge allowed the said writ petition.

6. Aggrieved over the said order, the present intra-Court appeal has been directed. In support of the writ appeal, Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that G.O.(Ms)No.344 dated 26.03.1984 would never say that, without even the consent from transferor College, such a migration could be effected and the same can be approved by the Directorate of Collegiate Education or the Commissioner of Directorate of Technical Education as the case may be.

7. We have gone through the import of G.O.(Ms)No.344, Education, Science and Technology Department dated 26.03.1984 where clause 2(B) makes it very clear that, if the consent is given both by the transferor college and transferee College and any request has come with such consent from both the Colleges for approval of such migration to the Directorate of Collegiate Education or Commissioner of Directorate of Technical Education, the same