Judgment :- (Prayer: - This Writ Appeal is filed against the order in WP.No.29480/2003 dated 24.9.2004 passed by this court.) Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. The Petitioner in WP.No.29480/2003 is the appellant in this writ appeal. 2. Aggrieved by the order of this court dated 24.9.2004 made in WP.No.29480/2003 filed by the appellant herein to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent herein in Letter No.3059/E2/2003-04 dated 25.9.2003 and the consequential order dated 13.10.2003 of the 4th respondent and to quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appellant's appointment as Lecturer in English in the 4th respondent College with effect from 13.7.2000 for the purpose of grant, dismissing the said Writ Petition, this Writ Appeal has been filed. 3. The case of the appellant as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the said Writ Petition is as follows: - The appellant passed M.A. (English) with 54.51% of marks in the year 1990 and M.Phil in the year 1991 and thereafter, he worked as a Lecturer in English at Pachaiappa's College (Evening Section) from 1991 to 1996. Thereafter, he joined the New College on 15.7.1996 in the permanent vacancy as a Lecturer in English and worked upto 30.4.2000. As per Section 15 of the TNPCR Act, the 2nd respondent is the competent authority to prescribe and approve the qualification of teachers appointed in the Private Colleges affiliated to them and hence, the New College sought approval for his qualification to hold the post of Lecturer. The 2nd respondent by order dated 2.11.1998 approved his qualification to hold the post of Lecturer with effect from 15.7.1997 in the New College and rounded of his marks in M.A (English) from 54.51% to 55% and thereafter, he joined the 4th respondent College on 13.7.2000 in the permanent vacancy as Lecturer in English. The Pachaiappas College (Evening Section) is run on self financing basis, while the New College and the 4th respondent College are aided colleges getting cent per cent aid from the 1st respondent. Both the self financing college and the aided colleges are private colleges under Section 2(8) of the TNPCR Act. The Pachaiappa's College and the New College and the 4th respondent College are affiliated to the 2nd respondent University. Both the self financing college and the aided colleges are private colleges under Section 2(8) of the TNPCR Act. The Pachaiappa's College and the New College and the 4th respondent College are affiliated to the 2nd respondent University. By order dated 5.7.2000, the 4th respondent appointed the appellant as Lecturer in English Department by virtue of his Selection held on 29.5.2000 subject to the approval of the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai and approval of his qualification by the University. The appellant joined the 4th respondent College on 13.7.2000 and the 4th respondent sought approval from the 2nd respondent for his appointment relating to his qualification, but the 2nd respondent refused to approve his qualification by order dated 12.12.2000 addressed to the 4th respondent without noticing and taking into account the earlier approval granted by them by order dated 2.11.1998. On the appeal preferred as against the same before the 2nd respondent, the Syndicate of the 2nd respondent by resolution dated 9.3.2001 resolved to approve his appointment relating to qualification based on the earlier approval. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent refused to approve his appointment by order dated 11.3.2002, stating that he was not eligible to hold the post of Lecturer on the ground that he was not having minimum marks of 55%, without considering the earlier order of the 2nd respondent, approving his qualification by rounding off his marks to 55%. Thereafter, the appellant approached the 1st respondent Government, which passed the impugned order dated 25.9.2003, refusing to approve the appointment of the appellant on the ground that the University Grants Commission is not given power to regularise the qualification. Based on the said order of the 1st respondent, the 4th respondent passed the consequential order dated 13.10.2003. Aggrieved by the said orders of the respondents 1 and 4, the said Writ Petition has been filed. 4. Based on the said order of the 1st respondent, the 4th respondent passed the consequential order dated 13.10.2003. Aggrieved by the said orders of the respondents 1 and 4, the said Writ Petition has been filed. 4. The 1st respondent contested the said Writ Petition by filing a counter affidavit, narrating the events leading to the rejection of the approval of the appellant's appointment and contending that the minimum requirements of a good academic record, 55% of the marks at the Masters Level and qualifying in the National Eligibility Test (NET) or an accredited test, shall remain for the appointment of lecturers and that the Government/ University may exempt Ph.D holders from NET or to require NET in their case, either as a desirable or essential qualification for appointment as Lecturers in Colleges and that minimum requirement of 55% marks need not be insisted upon for the existing incumbents who are already in the colleges, but these marks should be insisted upon for the new entrants. 5. This court, after considering the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, by order dated 24.9.2004, dismissed the said Writ Petition on the ground that the appellant herein was not having 55% of marks as prescribed under the UGC Act to hold the post of Lecturer in English and that the provisions of the TNPCR Act, 1976 cannot have any overriding effect on the UGC Act, 1956 and that therefore, rounding of the marks 54.51% to 55% cannot be said to be an act in consonance with the parameters fixed by the Central Legislation i.e. UGC Act, 1956 enacted by the Parliament and the Regulations made thereunder and that unless such of the acts perpetrated on the part of the 2nd respondent is approved by this Central Legislation, no amount of shelter could be taken in any fashion under the State Legislation particularly the TNPCR Act, since by virtue of the UGC Act, the field is already occupied by the Central Legislation as against which, the TNPCR Act cannot be put up nor could any provision of the State Legislation be in conflict with any of the provisions of the Central Legislation. 6. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.9.2004, this Writ Appeal has been filed by the Petitioner in the said Writ Petition, contending that this court erred in holding that the resolution dated 9.3.2001 passed by the Syndicate of the 2nd respondent University approving the qualification of the appellant for holding the post of Lecturer in English is bereft of any authority or force of law, in view of the Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976 and that this court failed to see that there is nothing illegal for the 2nd respondent in rounding of the 54.51% marks of the appellant as 55% as it is in conformity with the UGC Regulation prescribing marks on B Grade for the post of Lecturer and that the UGC Regulations 2000 does not forbid the 2nd respondent from rounding of marks above 54.51% as 55%. 7. This court considered the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and also the material records placed. 8. Now, the point raised before this court is that he was working from 1991 with the same percentage of marks and once the University passed a resolution dated 9.3.2001, approving his appointment relating to his qualification, the 1st respondent ought not to have rejected the letter of the appellant dated 18.12.2002, seeking for approval of his appointment based on the said resolution dated 9.3.2001. 9. In the case of Rameshwar Dass Mehla Vs. Om Prakash Saini & Others (2002-6-Supreme-545), before the Apex Court, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that that in judgement rendered in Tariq Islam Vs. Aligarh Muslim University (JT-2000-8-SC-459), the Apex Court, has consistently taken the view that the on such question, pertaining to qualifications, which is an academic matter should be left o the wisdom of the University Authorities and that certain notifications had been issued by the UGC explaining that insistence upon 55% marks in the case of the appellant, was not necessary at all in view of the fact that he was already in the service of the University and such relaxation had been given in case of readers earlier and that was the practice followed by the University throughout and that in matters fall within the realm of academic matters, it is not open to the court to interfere with the same and the matter should be left to the wisdom of the University Authorities. Appreciating the said contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant therein, the Apex Court has held as under:- "When the appellant has secured 54.85 marks in the Master's Degree and the Selection Committee is trying to find out as to who would be a suitable candidate and whether he possess the necessary qualification with reference to the appointment to be made, they found the marks obtained by him is as good as 55%. We do not think the view taken by the Selection Committee can be the subject matter of the judicial review as was held by this court in University of Mysore Vs. CD.Govinda Rao (1964-4-SCR-575). In academic matters, particularly, pertaining to qualifications, the view taken by the experts would be final. If this approach had been adopted by the High Court, the High Court could not have interfered with the action taken by the University in this case at all." and ultimately allowed those appeals, set aside the order made by the High Court and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondents therein. 10. It is also relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant herein the order of this court made in WP.No.17129/2002 dated 24.3.2006 in similar circumstances, where the Petitioner therein secured 52.9% marks in M.A. (English) and that considering the GO.MS.No.111 dated 24.3.1999, wherein it was stated as under: - "Minimum requirements of a good academic record, 55% of the marks at the Masters Level and qualifying in the National Eligibility Test or an accredited test. The minimum requirement of 55% need not be insisted upon for the existing incumbents who are already in College. 'B' in the seven point scale with letter grades 'O', 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F' shall be regarded as equivalent of 55% wherever the grading system is followed." this court allowed the said Writ Petition, quashing the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent therein dated 22.3.2002 and 6.5.2002, which has been communicated by the 4th respondent therein by letter dated 16.5.2002 and directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made therein and issue necessary orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and that therefore, the said order can be applied to the case on hand also. 11. 11. In the light of the above said judgments of the Apex Court and the order dated 24.3.2006 of this court and also considering that facts that since the selection of the appellant was made by conducting the interview and as per the said selection, he was appointed subject to approval by the Government with regard to the relaxation of the qualification and that the appellant was working from 1991 with the same percentage of marks and that the University passed a resolution dated 9.3.2001, approving his appointment relating to his qualification and that it is a general principle in Mathematic with regard to the rounding of decimal digit that when the decimal digit it exceeds 0.5 or equivalent to 0.5, it will be taken as one or 1 will be added to the integer number and that accordingly 54.51% of marks was rounded off to 55%, we are unable to appreciate the reasons given by this court in the impugned order, dismissing the present Writ Petition and this court is of the considered view that the impugned order in this writ appeal is liable to be set aside. In the result, this writ appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 24.9.2004 made in WP.No.29480/2003 and the impugned orders in WP.No.29480/2003 and directing the respondents to allow the appellant herein to continue in service from the date of his appointment. However, there is no order for consideration of break up in service. No costs. Consequently, the connected WAMP is closed.