Appointments must strictly follow reservation notifications and require selection committee approval; violations justify setting aside selections.

For Appellant : Mr.V.Paneer Selvam For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R2 to R4 Mr.G.Karthik, for M/s.Roy and Roy Associates for R1 Mr.V.Ramakrishnan for R5 COMMON JUDGMENT [Delivered by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.]

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in W.A.(MD)No.2808 of 2025.

2. W.A.(MD) No.2808 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, setting aside the selection of the appellant as Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology at the Virudhunagar Hindu Nadar's Senthikumara Nadar College.

3. The learned Single Judge, considering the fact that the very selection was made contrary to the notification, set aside the selection of the appellant.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been selected in the year 2017 and the selection was also approved by the authorities and he has been continuously working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology. However, his selection was set aside on the ground that the selection was made contrary to the notification.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. On a perusal of the notification dated 10.05.2017, it is seen that one post was reserved for Schedule Caste (Arunthathiyar). Though the first respondent/Writ Petitioner also participated in the interview, he was not selected, whereas the appellant (SC) was selected as a qualified candidate, which, in our view, is totally contrary to the notification, as the appointment has not been approved by the selection committee. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge.

7. However, now it is brought to the notice of this Court that the first respondent/Writ Petitioner is also willing to join any vacant post in the College Management. The learned counsel appearing for the College Management would submit that they are appointing the first respondent/Writ Petitioner in the vacant post and they have to send a proposal within a week to the authorities concerned for approval.

8. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 would submit that if a proposal is submitted, the same will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed.

9. In view of the above, this Court directs the 5^th respondent to send a proposal to the Government for approval of the appointment of the first respondent/Writ Petitioner, within a period of one week. If any proposal is made, respondents 2 to 4 are directed to consider the same sympathetically, since the appellant's appointment was approved in the year 2017 and is working continuously. Such order shall be passed within a month.

10. With the above directions, these Writ Appeals are disposed of.