By consent of both sides, this writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2.The petitioner has questioned the correctness of the impugned proceedings dated 26.02.2016 granting approval of appointment only from 26.02.2016 instead of 23.01.2015, from the date on which, the regular vacancy arose in the 4th respondent College.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has completed her Bachelor degree, Post Graduation, Ph.D., in Tamil from Bharathidasan University, Trichy. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent University invited application for the post of Assistant Professor in various Departments vide advertisement dated 07.04.2013 for the vacancies that had arisen for the sanctioned strength in the 4th respondent College. As the petitioner possesses the requisite qualifications, namely, B.A., M.A., M.Phil, Ph.D and NET in Tamil, she had applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Tamil Department and interview was also conducted on 05.01.2015 by the Selection Committee comprising of the President, Principal, in-charge, Head of the Department of Tamil, Two nominees from the Madurai Kamaraj University, two experts from the same subject and an academician representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Women/Differently abled category. Accordingly, the petitioner was selected as Assistant Professor vide communication, dated 19.01.2015 and she joined duty on 23.01.2015. Subsequently, when the 4th respondent College has also obtained approval of the qualification from the Madurai Kamaraj University, on 16.04.2015, a detailed proposal seeking approval of her appointment was sent to the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, the 2nd respondent herein. As there was a delay in considering the said proposal by the first respondent, the petitioner was constrained to make a representation to the Chief Minister's Cell regarding the non disbursement of her salary. Pursuant thereto, the Joint Director, the third respondent herein in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3523/E1/2015 dated 27.01.2016 has returned the proposal for approval of her appointment informing that the 4th respondent has made appointment of Assistant Professor without obtaining the approval of the Director of Collegiate Education. Aggrieved by the said communication dated 27.01.2016, the College made another representation to the Director to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner and others. Finally, the Director of Collegiate Education, issued an order on 27.02.2016 granting permission to the 4th respondent College to fill up the post of Assistant Professor for the department mentioned therein. After sometime, the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education informed the petitioner in proceeding dated 15.08.2016 bearing No.8055-E1/2016 that her appointment is approved from the date of the communication of the Director of Collegiate Education and not from the date of original appointment dated 23.01.2015.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that when the petitioner was appointed in a sanctioned post on 23.01.2015, after finding her fully eligible and suitable to the post of Assistant Professor and subsequently, Madurai Kamaraj University also has passed a detailed order dated 16.04.2015 granting qualification approval to the petitioner and other similarly placed persons in various departments in the 4th respondent College. While so, the 2nd respondent, while granting approval of her appointment with effect from 26.02.2016, has no reason to deny the order of approval from the date of her appointment, namely, 23.01.2015. The reason is that the proposal made by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent that the petitioner and other Assistant Professors were all appointed in a sanctioned post and before filling up of the sanctioned post of Assistant Professors in the 4th respondent College, it has been well settled by this Court that prior approval is unnecessary before filling up of any sanctioned post and the respondent ought not to have restricted the grant of approval only from the date of issuance of the order, instead of the date of appointment of the petitioner, namely, 23.01.2015, he contended.
5. Referring to a Division Bench order passed by this Court in P.Ravichandran v. State of Tamilnadu and others reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 641, dated 11.10.2013, submitted that when this Court has repeatedly held that there is no requirement under the Tamilnadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and Tamilnadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules 1976, to seek prior permission to fill up any vacancy post in an aided College, which had already been granted by the Director of Collegiate Education under Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules,1976, the respondents ought not to have delayed the proposal, and the benefit of order of approval from 23.01.2015 cannot be denied. As the respondents have already issued an order of approval with effect from 20.04.2015, the petitioner should be paid with salary by the 4th respondent from the date of appointment.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the law is well settled that prior approval to fill up the sanctioned post is unnecessary. But, however, when the 4th respondent has appointed the qualified persons in the post of Assistant Professors in the Department of Tamil etc., prior aproval should have been obtained, when nothing prevented the 4th respondent College to write to the 2nd respondent informing the vacancy position and after appointing the petitioner, they sent proposals. In any event, the order of approval has already been granted.
7. But, this Court is unable to find any merit in the submissions.
8. When the petitioner has acquired the requisite qualifications, namely, B.Lit, M.A., M.Phil. Ph.D., and passed NET, she was selected and appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in Tamil Department for the 4th respondent College on 19.01.2015 and she also joined duty on 23.01.2015. Subsequently, when the 4th respondent College has also obtained approval of the qualification from the Madurai Kamaraj University, on 16.04.2015 and, a detailed proposal seeking approval of her appointment was sent to the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, the 2nd respondent herein, the said proposal has not been considered for a long time. Therefore, the petitioner went to the Chief Minister's Cell mentioning the non disbursement of the salary to the petitioner and other similarly placed persons. Subsequently, the Joint Director of Collegiate Education the third respondent herein, in their proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3523/E1/2015 dated 27.01.2016 returned the proposal for approval of appointment stating that the 4th respondent had made appointment of Assistant Professors without obtaining approval from the Director of Collegiate Education. The said approach is impermissible in law. The reason is that the Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances has held in Paragraph Nos.20(1) and (2) as follows:
?20.In the light of the above findings as well as the decisions, we conclude this judgment in the following manner:
(1) There is no requirement under the Tamilnadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, to seek prior permission to fill up any vacant post in an aided college, which has already been sanctioned for the academic year by the Director of Collegiate Education under Rule 11(1) of the Rules.
(2) If the appointment made by the College Committee in the sanctioned vacant post is in violation of any of the statutory provision, it is open to the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education to deny grant-in-aid to the said person appointed in the vacant post.?
9. Following the same, in W.P.(MD) No.14732 and 14733 of 2016 dated 11.08.2016, I have also held that in the event of filling up of any sanctioned posts in any aided private College, prior approval is unnecessary. The relevant portion is also given as under:
?5.In view of the above submissions and the decision in P.Ravichandran's case followed by me in W.P.(MD) No.20347/2014 dated 17.06.2016, these writ petitions are allowed, setting aside the impugned orders. The 3rd respondent University is directed to consider the proposals of the petitioners' college seeking approval of the qualification of the abovesaid Assistant Professors, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. W.M.P(MD) Nos.10892 to 10895 of 2016 are closed.?
10. Therefore, the respondents, while granting approval from the date of issuance of the order dated 26.02.2016, in my considered opinion, ought not to have restricted the grant of approval only from the date of communication of the order and it should have been from the date of appointment of the petitioner.
11. In view of the above, the impugned order is modified and refusal to grant approval is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to grant approval from the date of appointment of the petitioner and pay the arrears of salary within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
To
1.The Secretary to Government Higher Education Department Government of Tamilnadu Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Director Collegiate Education, O/o. The Director of Collegiate Education, 9th Floor, EVK Sampath Buildings, College Road, Chennai.
3.The Joint Director, Office of the Director of Collegiate Education, Palam Station Road, Sellur, Madurai.
.