Amendments to filling rules for Group D posts not retrospective; pre-amendment vacancies filled per prior permission upheld.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 and seeking consequential direction to the respondents to grant approval for appointments of 15 Group D Non-Teaching Staffs and release the salary with effect from the date of appointment i.e., 04.09.2025 & 06.10.2025 respectively.

2. The petitioner herein is a college. It sought permission from the And respondent to fill up 15 Group. 'D' non-teaching posts. Such permission was accorded by the 3rd respondent through proceedings in Na.Ka.No.48084/G2/2022 dated 30.11.2022. According to the said proceeding, the petitioner proceeded to fill up the said Group 'D' non- teaching posts and issued appointment orders in favour of the selected candidates on 04.09.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner sought approval of the said appointments from the 3^rd respondent. However, the 3^rd respondent, by the impugned proceedings dated 28.01.2026, refused to grant approval on the ground that, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.66, Higher Education Department, dated 03.04.2025, all Group 'D' non-teaching posts are required to be filled up through outsourcing and not by way of regular appointments. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 28.01.2026, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 03.04.2025, has no application to vacancies that arose prior to 03.04.2025. According to him, sub-rule (3)(1) of Rule 11 of t he Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976, was amended through G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 03.04.2025, and the amended rule mandates that all Group 'D' posts are to be filled through outsourcing. However, the said amendment cannot be applied retrospectively to vacancies that arose prior to 03.04.2025. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others v.

National College, in W.A.No.3429 of 2025, dated 17.11.2025.

4. On the other hand, Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, contended that the appointments were made only on 04.09.2025 and 06.10.2025, which are clearly subsequent to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 03.04.2025. He further contended that the impugned appointments, which are the subject matter of the impugned proceedings, are not in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.66, and therefore, the 3rd respondent rightly refused to grant approval for the same.

5. It is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent had granted prior permission for filling up 15 Group 'D' non-teaching posts in the petitioner's college as early as on 30.11.2022. This factual aspect has been specifically stated in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, and the respondents have not disputed the same in the counter affidavit filed in the present writ petition.

6. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3429 of 2025 dated 17.11.2025 has considered the very same aspect and held as follows:

"6. Admittedly, the vacancies in 48 Group-D posts arose in 2022, and the respondent/writ petitioner submitted representation on 22.07.2022 seeking approval to fill up those vacancies. As on the date when the vacancies arose and the representation was made, there was no prohibtion on filling up Group-D category posts. The request for approval was rejected on 26.07.2023. The amendment to Rule 11 of the Rules, 1976, came into effect only on 03.04.2025 and does not contain any provision conferring retrospective operation. Therefore, the amended Rule cannot be invoked to retrospectively curtail the respondent/writ petitioner's