Madras High Court
Dr.N.Shanthi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 June, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.4240 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.(MD)No.4240 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)No.3435 of 2021
Dr.N.Shanthi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
For St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of Collegiate Education,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Madurai Region, Madurai-625 020.
4.The Secretary,
Fatima College (Autonomous)
Mary Land, Madurai-625 013. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned proceeding issued by the second
respondent Director of Collegiate Education in Na.Ka.No.
32954/g4/2019, dated 13.01.2020, quash the same and further
direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to approve forthwith the
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.4240 of 2021
appointment of petitioner as Assistant Professor in Department of
Botany from 07.07.2011 to 24.01.2014 in the fourth respondent
college namely, Fatima College and disburse the grant-in-aid
towards her salary and allowances for the said period.
For Petitioner : Ms.A.Amala
For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the
impugned proceeding issued by the second respondent, the
Director of Collegiate Education in Na.Ka.No.32954/g4/2019, dated
13.01.2020, and for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to
approve the appointment of petitioner forthwith as Assistant
Professor in the Department of Botany from 07.07.2011 to
24.01.2014 in the fourth respondent college namely, Fatima College
and disburse the grant-in-aid towards her salary and allowances for
the said period.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the
Department of Botany in the fourth respondent College on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.4240 of 2021
07.07.2011 in the regular vacancy arose on account of retirement
of previous incumbent Mrs.G.Rani on 31.05.2011 in the sanctioned
post. Her appointment was well within the staff strength fixed by
the second respondent dated 28.10.1999. The affiliating University
accorded qualification approval on 24.11.2014. Due to personal
inconvenience, she resigned her post on 24.01.2014. The fourth
respondent College sent the proposal to the third respondent by the
proceedings, dated 28.11.2014, seeking approval of petitioner's
appointment as Assistant Professor in the Department of Botany.
The third respondent by the proceedings dated 09.04.2015 rejected
the approval of the appointment of the petitioner and other 33
teaching staffs. The fourth respondent College filed a writ petition
in W.P(MD)No.14361 of 2015 challenging the said order of
rejection. This Court, by a common order dated 17.01.2018,
directed the respondents 2 & 3 to approve the appointment
forthwith and disburse the grant-in-aid towards their salaries and
allowances with effect from their respective dates of their
appointment. The respondents 2 & 3 have not complied with the
Common order of this Court, dated 17.01.2018. The fourth
respondent college filed contempt petition in Cont.P.(MD)No.453 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.4240 of 2021
2019. This Court, by order dated 12.09.2019, closed the contempt
petition by recording the submission of the learned Additional
Advocate General that except 8 persons, appointment of other
teaching staffs are approved and given liberty to the fourth
respondent to file fresh contempt petition, if their grievance with
regard to appointment of remaining 8 persons is not considered.
Again, the fourth respondent College filed contempt petition in
Cont.P.(MD)No.1637 of 2019 seeking to comply the order of this
Court insofar as denying the approval and disbursement of salary
towards 8 teaching staffs alone. When the contempt petition came
up for hearing on 22.01.2020, the second respondent by the
proceedings dated 13.01.2020, denied to grant approval to the
petitioner and three other teaching staffs, who have left their
service and granted approval to the other 4 teaching staffs, who
were in service. This Court closed the contempt petition on
01.09.2020. The petitioner has come out with the present writ
petition challenging the impugned order, dated 13.01.2020,
denying to grant approval of the appointment of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.4240 of 2021
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that in similar circumstances, when the fourth respondent
terminated the service of the probationer namely, one Mrs.Saradha
in the Department of English, she later resigned her post, the
respondents 2 & 3, by proceedings dated 12.02.2021, have
approved her appointment and disbursed the salary for the period
she had worked as Assistant Professor in the Department of English
ie., from 16.06.2016 to 20.12.2018. The learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that the impugned order of the second
respondent is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, void and without
jurisdiction. The petitioner was appointed in the regular
sanctioned vacancy. The petitioner is seeking to approve the
appointment and disburse the salary only for the period in which,
she was working in the Department of Botany. The second
respondent ought to have seen that when the similarly placed
person was sanctioned with such benefit of approval and
disbursement of salary, the same cannot be denied to the
petitioner and prayed for quashing the impugned order and
allowing the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.4240 of 2021
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
1 to 3 and perused the entire materials available on record.
5. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner
was appointed on 07.07.2011 in the fourth respondent college as
Assistant Professor in the Department of Botany in the sanctioned
post. When the fourth respondent sent the proposal to the third
respondent for approving the appointment of the petitioner, the
respondents 2 & 3 rejected the said proposal by the proceedings
dated 09.04.2015 on the ground that the fourth respondent did not
obtain prior permission. The writ petition in W.P(MD)No.14361 of
2015 filed by the fourth respondent was allowed by following the
judgment in P.Ravichandran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported
in (2013) 7 MLJ 641 holding that the education authority cannot
insist for prior permission for approval and directed the
respondents 2 & 3 to approve the appointment and disburse the
salary. After filing two contempt petitions, the second respondent
approved the appointment of 29 teaching staffs and disbursed the
salary, except the petitioner and three others.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.4240 of 2021
6. From the impugned order, it is seen that the second
respondent rejected the approval of the petitioner on the ground
that the petitioner resigned her job. The issue before the second
respondent was whether the appointment of the petitioner herein
can be approved from the date of her appointment. Initially, the
second respondent rejected the proposal of the fourth respondent
for approval of 33 Assistant Professors on the ground that the
fourth respondent did not get the prior permission to appoint the
teaching staffs. The said rejection was set aside by this Court vide
common order, dated 17.01.2018, in W.P(MD)No.14361 of 2015
and this Court held that education authority cannot insist the
private college for getting prior permission for appointment.
Further, the petitioner is seeking approval and disbursement of
salary only for the period in which, she worked in the fourth
respondent college in the sanctioned vacancy. It is not the case of
the respondents 2 & 3 that the petitioner is not qualified to be
appointed as Assistant Professor or that the petitioner is not
appointed in a sanctioned post. The concerned University from
where, the petitioner obtained education qualification, approved
her qualification. It is pertinent to note that the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.4240 of 2021
respondent, by the proceedings dated 12.02.2021, approved the
appointment of one Saratha, English Department, who was
terminated by the fourth respondent and subsequently, she
resigned her post, and disbursed her salary.
7. In view of the above, the impugned order of the second
respondent in Na.Ka.No.32954/g4/2019, dated 13.01.2020, is
quashed and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
am
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/
W.P.(MD)No.4240 of 2021
To
1.The Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
For St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of Collegiate Education,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Madurai Region, Madurai-625 020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.4240 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.,
am
W.P.(MD)No.4240 of 2021
16.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
