Wednesday, 06, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

The Secretary To Government vs Khadir Mohindeen College
2021 Latest Caselaw 14901 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 14901 Mad
Judgement Date : 26 July, 2021

Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs Khadir Mohindeen College on 26 July, 2021
                                                                     W.A.(MD)Nos.695 & 696 of 2019

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 26.07.2021

                                                  CORAM:

                               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
                                                     and
                                   THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
                                        W.A.(MD)Nos.695 & 696 of 2019
                                                     and
                                      C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6142 & 6145 of 2019


                     1.The Secretary to Government,
                        Government of Tamil Nadu Higher Education Department,
                        Chennai – 09.


                     2.The Director of Collegiate Education,
                        Chennai – 06.


                     3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
                        Thanjavur Region,
                        (Mannar Serfoji College Campus),
                        Thanjavur.
                                                        : Appellants in both Writ Appeals
                                                      Vs.
                     Khadir Mohindeen College,
                     Adhiramapattinam,
                     Thanjavur District,
                     Represented by its Secretary,
                     S.J.Abdul Hassan & Abdul Hassan
                                                      : Respondents in both Writ Appeals
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     1/5
                                                                       W.A.(MD)Nos.695 & 696 of 2019




                     COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters

                     Patent Act, praying to set aside the common order dated

                     30.01.2019        passed   in   W.P.(MD)Nos.432    and    433     of   2019,

                     respectively.

                                     For Appellant     : Mr.A.K.Manickkam
                                                        Standing Counsel for Government
                                     For Respondents : Mr.M.R.S.Prabhu
                                                        [In both Writ Appeals]


                                             COMMON JUDGMENT
                                             *************************
                                   [Common Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                              T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]


                               With the consent on either side, these Writ Appeals are taken

                     up for disposal.



                               2.Heard Mr.A.K.Manickkam, learned Standing Counsel for

                     Government appearing for the appellants and Mr.M.R.S.Prabhu,

                     learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.



                               3.These appeals by the Government are directed against the

                     common order dated 30.01.2019 passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.432 and

                     433 of 2019, respectively.


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     2/5
                                                                    W.A.(MD)Nos.695 & 696 of 2019




                               4.It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent

                     that they have handed over the case papers, since there is a change

                     of management.



                               5.The issue involved in these writ appeals is whether the

                     respondent management ought to have taken prior approval from

                     the department before appointment of a Library Assistant and a

                     Sweeper, since both of them were accommodated in sanctioned

                     posts. The learned Writ Court taking note of the judgment of the

                     Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of the Government of Tamil

                     Nadu,         represented   by   the   Secretary   to    Government,

                     Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Madras –

                     600 009 and others Vs. J.Remila and others reported in

                     2018-1-Writ L.R.410, allowed the writ petition.



                               6.On a perusal of the memorandum of grounds, we find that

                     there is no ground raised as to how the judgment of the Division

                     Bench is not applicable to the case of the respondent. Thus, we are

                     not inclined to interfere with the order passed in the Writ Petition.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     3/5
                                                                         W.A.(MD)Nos.695 & 696 of 2019




                               7.Accordingly,   the   Writ   Appeal fails    and    is   dismissed.

                     However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,

                     connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.




                                                              [T.S.S., J.]   &     [S.A.I., J.]
                                                                        26.07.2021
                     Index         : Yes / No
                     Internet: Yes / No
                     MR



                     Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
                          COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
                          may be utilized for official purposes, but,
                          ensuring that      the copy of the order that is
                          presented is the correct copy, shall be the
                          responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     4/5
                                             W.A.(MD)Nos.695 & 696 of 2019



                                             T.S.SIVAGNANAM., J.

and S.ANANTHI., J.

MR

COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD)Nos.695 & 696 of 2019

26.07.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter