Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2.The petitioner seeks for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to admit the petitioner on deputation to the "P.G.DIPLOMA IN HEALTH PROMOTION AND EDUCATION" course for the academic year 2002-2003. 3.The petitioner states that she having completed B.Sc. Nursing Course with distinction was appointed as clinical instructress in the year 1987 and continued in that post till 1994. Thereafter, she was re-appointed as Public Health Instructress in June, 1995 in the service of the respondent and continues in the same post till date. The petitioner is fully qualified to apply for the course conducted by the respondent namely, "P.G.DIPLOMA IN HEALTH PROMOTION AND EDUCATION" (DHPE) which is affiliated to the Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. According to the petitioner, there is no promotional avenue in the service in which she is working presently and therefore, she has to take up the higher education for better future. 4.During April,2002, the respondent called for applications for the said course, which is a one year course. The service candidates are also eligible to apply. The petitioner applied to the said course through proper channel as she is employed under the respondent and the respondent called on the petitioner to attend the interview which was scheduled to be held on 17.6.2002. The petitioner underwent written examination and also she had appeared for the interview held on 17.6.2002. The Interview Committee informed the petitioner that she was selected. The only other service candidate by name Arul Mary did not appear for the interview. On 18.6.2002, the selection list was also affixed on the notice board of the main office, which disclosed the name of the petitioner as the first rank holder. When she went to the office to receive the selection card on 18.6.2002, she was not given the selection card. The selection list which was displayed on the notice board was also removed. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this court. 5.In the counter filed by the respondent the fact that she was qualified to be selected to the course and that in fact in the selection she stood as first among the service candidates is not denied. In fact it is admitted in paragraph 3 of the counter that in the final selection list the petitioner's name was shown as first. In fact it is admitted in paragraph 3 of the counter that in the final selection list the petitioner's name was shown as first. However, according to the respondent the selection was placed before the Executive Committee meeting on 18.6.2002 and the Executive Committee which was the authorised body for the sanction of deputation of staff, went into the matter in detail and discussed it in full. The Executive Committee resolved that since the Institute is planning to start B.Sc., Nursing Course, it is better not to permit any nursing staff from the institute to undergo DHPE Course. The said decision was also upheld in the Board of Trustee's Meeting held on 22.6.2002 and hence, no selection order was issued to the petitioner. It is further stated that in the event of sending the petitioner for deputation, the said vacancy should be filled by temporary appointment of a substitute in the vacant place. This was generally objected to by the Auditors and prior approval from Government has to be obtained which is generally not given. It is further stated that the petitioner had already undergone another Diploma Course in Public Health Nursing Course (1989-1990). Therefore, it was only in keeping the welfare of the Institute in mind, it was resolved by Executive Committee and Board of Trustees in the Meetings held on 18.6.2002 and 22.6.2002, that it is better not to permit nursing staff from the institute to undergo DHPE Course for the year 2002-2003. 6.I heard both sides and the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent had reiterated the aforesaid pleadings. 7.It is not disputed that the petitioner pursuant to her wish to acquire certificate in P.G.Diploma in Health Promotion and Education course had applied for the same and she was also required to write a written examination and was also called for interview. It is also admitted that the petitioner was ranked first in the selection list. But the Executive Committee appears to have decided that there was no necessity to send the petitioner for deputation for the reason that the institute was planning to start B.Sc.Nursing course and that sending the petitioner on deputation would result in a temporary vacancy and that the temporary vacancy could not be filled up without approval by the Government. Therefore, it is apprehended that the auditors will positively object to the same. Therefore, it is apprehended that the auditors will positively object to the same. Further more that she had already undergone the Diploma in Public Health Nursing Course (1989-1990) and therefore, there was no need to send her on deputation again for another post. 8.It is further contended by the counsel for the respondent that having regard to the administrative control, the decision of the Executive Committee and the Board of Trustees was final. 9.It is no doubt true that the decision of the Executive Committee or the Board of trustees will be final as far as the administrative functions of the institute is concerned. But such exercise of power has to be reasonable and be exercised in a proper manner. If the decision of the Executive Committee is found to be either unreasonable or arbitrary, the said decision is amenable to be set aside by the court. The respondent is a public institution. In the present case, the objection of the respondent does not appear to be reasonable. The petitioner pursuant to her ambition and in furtherance of her justifiable expectation to improve her future prospects had thought that acquiring qualification of Diploma in Public Health Promotion and Education, would be necessary. She has also appeared for the examination and in the interview, she has been found fit. Therefore, there is nothing wrong on the part of an individual like the petitioner in seeking to acquire better qualifications for a better future. It is not proper on the part of the respondent to prevent her from doing so on the basis of some administrative reasons. Even the said administrative reasons given by the respondent, do not satisfactorily support the action of the respondent in prohibiting the petitioner in acquiring the Post Graduate qualification nor is the reason sufficient to out weigh the justifiable and legitimate expectation of the petitioner. In these days of unemployment crisis, temporary appointment by a substitute is not a difficult issue. The approval of the Government for filling up the vacancy is a formal requirement which is bound to be given if a proper case is made out and that cannot be the reason to deprive the petitioner of her right to pursue higher studies. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the reasons which have weighed with the respondent to prevent the petitioner in acquiring the Post Graduate qualification. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the reasons which have weighed with the respondent to prevent the petitioner in acquiring the Post Graduate qualification. 10.In result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, no order is necessary in W.P.M.P.No.55253 of 2002 and the same is closed.