SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 44623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. Asha, J
S. Jaina Bibi – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
WMP No.16198 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Babu Rangasamy
For the Respondents: M.R.Gokul Krishnan, M.R.Jothimanian

The state cannot arbitrarily withhold approval for a duly selected candidate to a sanctioned post while granting approval to similarly situated candidates, especially when the selection committee followed prescribed institutional and statutory regulations.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to approve her appointment as an Assistant Professor in a college. The facts indicate that the petitioner, possessing the required qualifications, was selected for a sanctioned post. Despite other similarly placed candidates receiving approval, the petitioner's appointment remained pending due to administrative objections regarding backlog vacancies. The court found that the selection process followed the due procedure mandated by regulations and that the petitioner was appointed to an existing sanctioned vacancy. The court determined that denying approval to the petitioner while granting it to 119 other candidates amounted to discriminatory treatment and was contrary to established judicial directions. The court addressed whether the appointment made by the selection committee was valid and whether the state authorities were justified in withholding approval. The court observed that its previous directions in related proceedings mandated the approval of appointments conducted according to procedure. The ratio decidendi established that once vacancies are sanctioned and candidates are selected following due process under academic regulations, the state cannot arbitrarily withhold approval while granting it to similarly situated individuals. The petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to approve the petitioner's appointment on or before 01.06.2026.

Table of Content
1. details of petitioner's appointment, selection process, and administrative approval history. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's legal assessment of appointment validity and mandate for parity in treatment. (Para 4 , 5)

PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as assistant professor (Economics) in the 6th respondent college with effect from 07.10.2024 and release salary and other benefits attached to the same with effect from the said date.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Babu Rangasamy for M/s.Babu Rangasamy Associates For Respondent(s): Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, AGP for R1-3 Mr.M.R.Jothimanian for R5

ORDER

The petitioner has sought a mandamus to the respondents 1 to 3 to approve her appointment as Assistant Professor (Economics) in the 6th respondent College with effect from 07.10.2024 and release the salary and other arrears attached to the same with effect from the said date.

2.The petitioner would contend that she possess M.A(Economics), M.Phil., and Ph.D., degrees. She is now working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics in the 6th respondent institution. The 6th respondent College is administered by the Pachayappa Trust Board (the 5th respondent herein).

2.1.The 5th respondent had invited applications for appointment for various aided posts vide Advertisement No.01 of 2024 dated 01.02.2024. The posts for which the advertisement had been issued were for the following: 130 Assistant Professors, 1 Librarian and 1 Physical Education Teacher (including 20 backlog vacancies) for six Government Arts and Science Colleges on regular basis. Out of total 132 posts notified, two posts of Assistant Professor in Economics were notified for the 6th respondent college. The petitioner had applied for the said post and after the process of selection which included interview and verification of original certificates, she was selected and appointed vide the proceedings of the 5th respondent dated 01.10.2024 and she had joined services on 07.10.2024, in which post, she continues to date.

2.2.The 5th respondent had sent a proposal to the 4th respondent University seeking approval for the petitioner's qualifications and by proceedings dated 14.11.2024, the 4th respondent University had also granted the approval with effect from the date of her appointment. Even this approval was granted only on the intervention of this Court by its order dated 24.04.2024 made in W.P.No.10091 of 2024.

2.3.The writ petition in W.P.No.10091 of 2024 was filed by the 5th respondent Board seeking a direction to forbear the Government, the University of Madras and the Annamalai University and their subordinates from interfering with the lawful administration and day to day affairs of the Educational Institutions run by the petitioner Trust as per the UGC Regulations as well as the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. By an order dated 24.04.2024, this Court had directed the affiliating Universities namely respondents 4 and 5 therein to send two experts as per procedure, to proceed further with the selection process, the nominations to be communicated in writing to the petitioner therein ie., 5th respondent herein within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and thereafter, the petitioner/appropriate Selection Committee shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law and complete the selection process as expeditiously as possible. It is thereafter that the petitioner's qualifications has been approved.

2.4.Thereafter, the 5th respondent had sent a proposal to the 3rd respondent Joint Director for approval of the petitioner's appointment along with the other 122 appointments made in the colleges in Chennai which were administered by the 5th respondent. By the proceedings dated 07.04.2025, the 2nd respondent refused to approve the appointmen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top