Madras High Court
A.Felcy Navajothy vs The Director Of Collegiate Education on 21 March, 2025
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
W.P.(MD)No.1399 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
W.P.(MD)No.1399 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD).No.985 of 2025
A.Felcy Navajothy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director of Collegiate Education
College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Tirunelveli Region,
Tirunelveli – 627 002.
3. The Correspondent cum Secretary,
Sarah Tucker College,
Tirunelveli - 627 007. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent Commissioner / Director in
Na.Ka.No.44402/F4/2023-1 dated 10.10.2024 and quash the same and further
direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to approve forthwith the appointment of the
petitioner as Assistant Professor in Physics in the 3rd 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. 02.12.2020.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 09:13:44 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.1399 of 2025
For Petitioner : M/s.Amala
for
Mr.T.Cibichakraborthy
For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr.M.Siddharthan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner herein is an Assistant Professor in a Private Minority
Aided College. When Respondent No.3 had made an appointment of one
teaching staff, i.e., the petitioner herein as Assistant Professor in the Department
of Physics and sought for disbursement of grant-in-aid towards her salary and
allowances from the date of her appointment i.e., on 02.12.2020, the same came
to be dismissed by the 2nd respondent through the impugned proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.44402/F4/2023-1 dated 10.10.2024.
2.Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the respondent Nos.1 & 2, basing on the averments made in the counter
affidavit would submits that after assessing the proposal which has been sent by
the second respondent, the first respondent has rejected the said proposal by
issuing impugned order dated 10.10.2024. He further contends that the
Management of the College has not followed proper and fair procedures in the
appointment of the petitioner, as such no further action can be taken in this
regard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 09:13:44 pm )
3. The issue as to whether the Education Authorities can interfere with
the selection process of Private Minority School Management has come up for
consideration in various cases before the Honourable Supreme Court as well as
this Court and in one such decision before the Honourable Division Bench, in
the case of 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, such interference was held to be
impermissible.
4. Following the decision of the Honourable 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 in W.P.(MD).No.4636 & 4640 of 2021, on 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, this Court had followed the decision in the FMI's case
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 09:13:44 pm )
Institution, which is impermissible. The relevant portion of the orders 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: 28/03/2025 09:13:44 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: 28/03/2025 09:13:44 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 09:13:44 pm )
.........
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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 09:13:44 pm )
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 09:13:44 pm )
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.
(2) If the appointment made by the College Committee in the
sanctioned vacant post is in violation of any of the statutory provision,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 09:13:44 pm )
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.
14. Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation)
Act, 1976, provides for the constitution of a College Committee, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 09:13:44 pm )
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.”
5. All the reasons assigned in the present impugned order are similar to
that of the rejection order in Fatima College's case, except for the reason
assigned by them that as per G.O.(Ms.) No.44, Labour (m) Employment (T2)
Department, dated 11.03.2015, the post should be filled up issuing
advertisement to the Newspapers, which is not informal. Even this reason was
considered by me 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 in W.P.(MD).No.25931 of 2019,
dated 17.04.2020, which reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 09:13:44 pm )
“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 Section 11 of the Act unlike in respect of the
institutions not being Minority institutions. In the absence of such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 09:13:44 pm )
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 09:13:44 pm )
6. Thus, the reason that the advertisement ought to have been given in the
newspapers, cannot be sustained in view of the above said decisions. As such,
the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions:
i) the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent/Commissioner
of Collegiate Education in Na.Ka.No.44402/F4/2023-1, dated 10.10.2024, is
hereby quashed.
ii) There shall be a direction to the second respondent to pass orders for
approving the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor in the
Department of Physics with effect from her date of appointment (i.e.,)
02.12.2020, 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 the salary and other
attendant benefits to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 09:13:44 pm )
There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.03.2025
NCC:yes/no
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
gvn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 09:13:44 pm )
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
gvn
To:
1. The Director of Collegiate Education
College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Tirunelveli Region,
Tirunelveli – 627 002.
3. The Correspondent cum Secretary,
Sarah Tucker College,
Tirunelveli - 627 007.
21.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 09:13:44 pm )
