The Court held that once a selection process for an educational post is conducted in accordance with regulations and others similarly situated have been granted approval, it is arbitrary and discriminatory for state authorities to withhold approval for a candidate appointed against an existing sanctioned vacancy without valid justification.

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 (physics) in the 6th respondent college with effect from 03.10.2024 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 (Physics) in the 6^th respondent College with effect from 03.10.2024 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.Sc.,(Physics) and Ph.D., degrees. She is now working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics in the 6^th respondent institution. The 6^th respondent College is administered by the Pachayappa Trust Board (the 5^th respondent herein).

2.1.The 5^th 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, one post of Assistant Professor in Physics were notified for the 6^th 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 5^th respondent dated 01.10.2024 and she had joined services on 03.10.2024, in which post, she continues to date.

2.2.The 5^th respondent had sent a proposal to the 4^th respondent University seeking approval for the petitioner's qualifications and by proceedings dated 22.01.2025, the 4^th 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 5^th 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., 5^th 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 which the petitioner's qualifications has been approved.

2.4.Thereafter, the 5^th respondent had sent a proposal to the 3^rd 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 5^th respondent. By the proceedings dated 07.04.2025, the 2^nd respondent refused to approve the appointment