Madras High Court
G.Menaga vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.6075 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.(MD)No.6075 of 2025
G.Menaga ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director of Collegiate Education,
College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Tirunelveli Region,
Tirunelveli - 627 002.
4.The Correspondent cum Secretary,
Sarah Tucker College,
Tirunelveli - 627 007. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the
impugned order issued by the third respondent / Joint Director in Na.Ka.No.
13848/Aa3/2024 dated 03.01.2025, quash the same and further direct the second
____________
Page 1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:34 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.6075 of 2025
and third respondents to approve forthwith the appointment of the petitioner as
Assistant Professor in Tamil in the fourth respondent college and to sanction and
disburse the grant in aid to the petitioner towards her salary and all other
attendant benefits w.e.f. 28.04.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy
For R1 to R3 : Mr.T.Amjadkhan
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings of the
third respondent / Joint Director dated 03.01.2025 and to further direct the
respondents 2 and 3 to forthwith approve the appointment of the petitioner as
Assistant Professor in Tamil in the fourth respondent college and to sanction and
disburse the grant-in-aid towards her salary and all other attendant benefits with
effect from 28.04.2023.
2. The petitioner is an Assistant Professor in a Private Minority Aided
College. Upon her appointment in the Department of Tamil on 28.04.2023, the
fourth respondent sought disbursement of grant-in-aid towards her salary and
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:34 pm )
allowances from the said date. However, the third respondent did not respond to
this request. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.4855 of 2024, in which
this Court, by order dated 01.03.2024, directed the respondents 2 and 3 to
consider the proposal submitted by the fourth respondent and pass appropriate
orders. Despite this, no action was taken by the respondents 2 and 3, prompting
the petitioner to file Cont.P.(MD) No.2065 of 2024, which is still pending. While
the matter remained unresolved, the third respondent passed the impugned order
dated 03.01.2025, rejecting the proposal. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
3. Mr.T.Amjadkhan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3, submits that after careful assessment of the proposal, the third
respondent has rejected the same by passing the impugned order dated
03.01.2025. He further contends that the Management of the College did not
follow the proper and fair procedures in appointing the petitioner and therefore,
no further action can be taken in this regard.
4. The issue as to whether the Education Authorities can interfere with the
selection process of Private Minority School Managements has been considered
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:34 pm )
in various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. In one
such case, the Hon'ble Division Bench, in The Forum of Minority Institution
(FMI) and Associations vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Joint
Director of Collegiate Education and others, reported in 2011 (1) CTC 162,
categorically held that such interference by the authorities is impermissible.
5. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, this Court, in the
case of The Secretary, Fatima College, Mary Land, Madurai – 625 018,
Madurai District vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 and
others [W.P.(MD)Nos.4636 & 4640 of 2021, dated 30.06.2022], had an occasion
to deal with the similar impugned order of rejection, whereby, the reasons
assigned for such rejection were similar to that of the reasons assigned by the
respondents in the present writ petition. While quashing the order of rejection in
Fatima College's case [cited supra], this Court had followed the decision in the
FMI's case [cited supra] and held that the rejection of the proposal on the reasons
assigned in the rejection order will amount to interference in the selection process
of a Minority Institution, which is impermissible. The relevant portion of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:34 pm )
order reads as follows:-
“2.When the 'University Grants Commission Regulations,
2000' (hereinafter referred to as UCG Regulations, 2000') were put under
challenge before an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of
The Forum of Minority Institutions (FMI) and Associations Vs. The
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Joint Director of Collegiate Education
reported in 2011 (1) CTC 162, it was declared therein that the UCG
Regulations, 2000, for constitution of a Selection Committee, were not
applicable to Minority Institutions. While holding so, the Hon'ble
Division Bench had also dealt with all the Clauses in the UCG
Regulations, 2000, including Clause 5.1.5, which provides for the
constitution of a Selection Committee in a Minority Educational
Institution.
3.The UCG Regulations, 2010, has replicated the aforesaid Clause
with regard to the constitution of a Selection Committee in Clause 5.1.4,
which is verbatim the same as that of the UCG Regulations, 2000.
4.When the provision for a Selection Committee under the 2000
Regulations was made inapplicable to Minority Institutions in FMI's case
(supra), an identical provision in the 2010 Regulations cannot be given a
new interpretation, but rather should be construed to have excluded
Minority Institutions from forming Selection Committee. In this
background, the Educational selection process or the qualification of the
candidates, who were selected therein.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:34 pm )
5.In the instant cases, two Assistant Professors viz., Dr.Sr.Bindhu
Antony and A.Sarpiya Rani were appointed as Assistant Professors in
Commerce and French on 16.08.2016 and 13.02.2017 respectively. On
the proposal dated 12.06.2018, submitted by the College Management to
the third respondent herein, rejection orders, both dated 05.01.2021,
came to be passed, predominantly rejecting the proposal on the grounds
that no Selection Committee was constituted; that no subject experts had
participated in the selection process; and that the notification for
selection was not published in two newspapers. This apart, the third
respondent had also questioned the qualification of the selected
candidates, stating that the degrees obtained by them are not supported
by an equivalence certificate and that their prior permission for selection
was not obtained.
6.While the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Educational Authorities under the State Government will have no powers
to interfere with the selection process of a Minority Institution, the
learned Additional Government Pleader placed reliance on the UGC
Regulations, 2010 and submitted that since the Regulations covers a
Minority Institution also, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders.
7.When the Hon'ble Division Bench in Forum of Minority
Institutions and Associations's case (cited supra) dealt with all these
aspects, the declaration that the UGC Regulations, 2000, will not
applicable to the Minority Colleges was made based with the following
justification:
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:34 pm )
''4.It is the case of the petitioner that filling up of posts in the
member institutions has been sanctioned by the State of Tamil Nadu and
in pursuance thereof, member institutions have commenced the process of
filling up the vacancies. It is the case of the petitioner that in some cases,
vacancies have been filled by the respective institutions and approval of
qualifications has been sought for from respective Universities. Some of
the universities have passed orders rejecting approval of qualifications of
appointees on the ground that the Selection Committee was not
constituted in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2000 whereas some
of the universities have failed to approve recommendations.
......
......
7. .......
(i) .........
(ii) the constitution of the Selection Committee under the UGC
Regulations, 2000 regarding minimum qualification for appointment and
career advancement of teachers in Universities and Colleges with a
majority of outsiders nominated by the Respondent Universities interferes
with the rights of the members of the petitioner to administer their
institutions;
(iii) & (iv)
(v) that the University Grants Commission, New Delhi, has no
power to make Regulations in respect of Selection Committees for
appointment of teaching staff in the private Colleges, therefore,
Notification is void and of no effect.
.........
59.Thus, a reading of these judgments would show that right of
minority institutions to select candidates of their own choice by regulating
their process of selection is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
60.In view of the settled proposition of law, the contention of
learned counsel for the University Grants Commission that by way of
amendment of regulations, independence has been given to the minority
institutions to select their own people without outside interference, as the
right of appointment of teachers out of qualified teachers is to be left to
the minority institutions alone cannot be accepted, as the process of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:34 pm )
selection of teachers cannot regulated, as it would amount to interference
in administration of minority institutions.
61.The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that
regulations are in public interest to maintain standard of education also
cannot be accepted as the appointment of qualified teachers as per the
qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission by the
minority institutions cannot be said to violate the public interest, nor it
can be said that the educational standard would not be maintained.
62.The right of minority institutions under Section 30 is absolute
right being basis structure of the Constitution and therefore, any
regulation interfering with the right of administration would not be
applicable to the minority institutions, being violative of Article 30(1) of
the Constitution.
63.The contention that right to administer does not include right to
maladministration also cannot be accepted as the minority institutions
would be bound by qualification laid down for appointment of teachers
and also would be bound to follow other statutory laws necessary for
running their institutions to maintain educational standard. The only
restriction placed is with regard to the right to interfere in the selection of
staff of the minority institutions.
64.Once the right of appointment of teachers is taken to be the right
of administration, which is not even disputed by the respondents, no other
conclusion than the one that the impugned regulations would not apply to
minority institutions can be arrived
at.
.............
For the reasons stated, the writ petitions are allowed, and
declaration is issued, that the impugned regulations for constitution of
Selection Committee shall not be applicable to the Minority Institutions.
Consequently, Writ in nature of Mandamus is issued directing the
respondents to approve the selection made by the minority institutions
without reference to Clause 3 of Annexure to UGC Regulations 2000,
subject to the selected candidates fulfilling other qualifications,
experience etc. No costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:34 pm )
8.The aforesaid extract is self explanatory. Thus, in view of the
declaration made by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the Educational
Authorities of the State Government will have no powers absolutely to
interfere with the selection process, which powers are solely vested with
the College Management. Thus, the reasons assigned by the third
respondent in the impugned orders that a Selection Committee was not
constituted and that there were no subject experts during the process of
selection and that the notification for selection was not published in two
newspapers will tantamount to interfering with the selection process and
thus cannot be sustained.
9.Insofar as the reason that the College Management had not
sought for prior permission of the authorities for selection are concerned,
an Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of P.Ravichandran Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Department of Higher
Education, Chennai and others reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 641, had dealt
with this aspect as to whether prior permission is mandatory to fill up the
vacancies arising in a Minority Institution?
10.In paragraph 20 of the said order, such a requirement was held
to be not necessary for a Minority Institution, in the following manner:
''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 Tamil Nadu Private
Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Tamil Nadu Private Colleges
(Regulation) Rules, 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:34 pm )
(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.
(3) The teaching staff appointed must be fully qualified, whose
qualification is approved by the University to which the college is
affiliated. Insofar as the nonteaching staff are concerned, the candidate
must possess the qualification prescribed by the Government.”
11.In view of the aforesaid decision, the claim of the respondents
that their permission was not obtained before appointing these two
teachers cannot be legally unsustainable.
12.Likewise, in the aforesaid decision in P. Ravichandran's case
(cited supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench had also observed that the
qualification of the teaching staff, to be appointed, requires to be approved
only by the University, to which the college is affiliated. In the instant case,
the last reason assigned by the respondents for rejection of the proposal, is
that the qualification of these candidates is not supported by an
equivalence certificate issued by the competent authority. This reasoning is
Division Bench in P.Ravichandran's case (cited supra). While the
concerned University is the competent authority to approve the
qualifications of the teaching staff, the State Governmental Educational
Authorities will have no jurisdiction to scrutinize or question such
educational qualifications.
13.This apart, another reason assigned in the impugned orders is
that, Form-7A, which is an form of agreement between the college and the
teacher, has not been enclosed along with the proposal.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:34 pm )
14.Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act,
1976, provides for the constitution of a College Committee, which
provision specifically excludes a minority college from its purview. Rule 11
of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 mandates for
an agreement between the college and the teachers in Form-7A. In view of
the exclusion of a minority college from the purview of Section 11 the
Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, Rule 11 will also be
inapplicable insofar as Minority Institutions are concerned. In other
words, Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules,
1976, which mandates an agreement in the Form-7A, would be applicable
to colleges, other than the Minority Colleges and therefore, the third
respondent's action in W.P.(MD)No.14802 of 2022 rejecting the
petitioner's proposal on this ground also cannot be sustained.''
6. All the reasons assigned in the present impugned order are similar to that
of the rejection order in Fatima College's case [cited supra]. Even this reason
was considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of The
Secretary, St. Ignatius College of Education, Palayamkottai – 627 002,
Tirunelveli District vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 and
two others [W.P.(MD)No.25931 of 2019, dated 17.04.2020], which reads as
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:34 pm )
follows:-
''When the petitioner institution, which is the Minority institution,
had sought for an approval for appointment of one Mr.S.Sebastian as
Record Clerk, the same came to be returned through the impugned order
dated 26.11.2018 on the ground that there was no proper advertisement
published in the newspaper before the appointment was made. The said
order dated 26.11.2018 has been put under challenge in the present writ
petition.
2.The status of a minority institution has already come up for
consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the protection
granted therein, they continue under such protection in view of Article 30
of the Constitution of India. When the respondents had, in an identical
situation, refused grant of approval to a non teaching staff insofar as
similarly placed minority institution on the ground of lack of publicity for
appointment, this Court by order dated 16.08.2019 passed in W.P.Nos.
17511 and 17518 of 2019 in the case of Secretary Nirmala College for
Women (Autonomous) Vs., The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary
and two others had set aside the rejection by holding that insistence on
requirement of advertisement for appointment on nonteaching staff in the
minority institution is without the authority of law. The relevant portion of
the said order reads as hereunder:
'......... 11.As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner Rule 11(4)(ii) was in relation to the appointment of teaching
staff by the College Committee. But as far as the Minority Institutions are
concerned, the College Committee is not required to be constituted under
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:34 pm )
Section 11 of the Act unlike in respect of the institutions not being Minority
institutions. In the absence of such regulation, this Court is unable to
countenance the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in refusing to grant
approval of the appointments of the seven nonteaching staff in the
petitioner institution. The refusal to grant approval for the subject
appointments, would therefore, cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny
and the same is liable to be interfered with. The insistence on requirement
of advertisement for appointment of nonteaching staff in the Minority
Institution is without the authority of law and the same cannot be enforced
as against the petitioner institution. The petitioner institution comes under
the protective cover, being the minority institution, under Article 30 of the
Constitution of India, such protective cover cannot be sought to be
uncovered by the insistence on a statutory requirement, which first of all
cannot be made applicable for the non-teaching staff and secondly such
requirement cannot be enforced in the teeth of the Constitutional
protection guaranteed to the minority institutions. In fact, the claim of the
petitioner is fully covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, cited above.'
3.This Court is also of the similar view that the respondents cannot
insist for such advertisement for filling up the post of non-teaching staff in
a minority institution and such an issue is covered in the aforesaid
decision. As such, the impugned order, returning the petitioner's
application on the ground that the advertisement was not made prior to the
approval, cannot be sustained.'
As such, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions:-
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:34 pm )
(i) the impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent dated
03.01.2025, is hereby quashed.
(ii) There shall be a direction to the third respondent to pass orders for
approving the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor in the
Department of Tamil with effect from her date of appointment (i.e.,) 28.04.2023,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) On granting approval of the appointment of the petitioner, the
respondents shall disburse the grant-in-aid towards her salary and other attendant
benefits to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter.
There shall be no order as to costs.
NCC : Yes / No 14.07.2025
Index : Yes / No (4/4)
smn2
To:-
1.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Higher Education,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director of Collegiate Education,
College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:34 pm )
3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Tirunelveli Region,
Tirunelveli - 627 002.
4.The Correspondent cum Secretary,
Sarah Tucker College,
Tirunelveli - 627 007.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:34 pm )
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
smn2
14.07.2025
(4/4)
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 01:38:34 pm )
