Judgment : Ms. Jessi Jeeva Priya, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. Mr. M. Sureshkumar takes notice on behalf of the fourth respondent and by consent of the respective counsel, the writ petition is taken up for final orders. 2. Theprayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the fourth respondent University to give qualification approval to 8 lecturers viz., C. Jeyasekar, M. Moni, E. Ebin Raja Merly, D. Aruldhas, L. Padmaja, N.T. Nevaditha, C. Isaac Sobanaraj, G. Johncy Christobel, appointed in the college with effect from 26.7.2006, forthwith. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that the petitioner-college is a Christian Minority College coming under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. In the petitioner college, 140 teaching staff and 65 nonteaching staff are sanctioned by the Department in various aided courses offered by the college. By an order dated 19.7.2006, the second respondent permitted to fill up eight posts of lecturers in the existing vacancies to the petitioner college. The said eight posts are as follows: Sl. No. Subject No. of Post(s) 01. English 1 02. Economics 1 03. Mathematics 1 04. Physics 2 05. Chemistry 2 06. Botany 1 Total 8 4. In respect of the said vacancies permitted to be filled up, the following lecturers, who are already appointed in retirement vacancies were accommodated. The details of the appointments are as follows: Sl. No. Post Incumbent Qualification Appointment 1 English C. Jeyasekar M.A., M.Phil 26.7.2006 2 Economics M. Moni M.A., M.Phil, B.Ed 26.7.2006 3 Maths E. Ebin Raja Merly M.Sc., M.Phil 26.7.2006 4 Physics D. Aruldhas M.Sc., M.Phil 26.7.2006 5 Physics L. Padmaja M.Sc., M.Phil 26.7.2006 6 Chemistry N.T. Nevaditha M.Sc., M.Phil., M.Ed 26.7.2006 7 Chemistry C. Isaac Sobanaraj M.Sc., M.Phil., M.Ed 26.7.2006 8 Botany G. Johncy Christobel M.Sc., M.Phil 26.7.2006 5. After accommodating the said eight persons, the management submitted a proposal before the fourth respondent University on 17.8.2006, for the purpose of their qualification approval. The said qualification approval is necessary for the disbursement of grant-in-aid and paying salary to the said lecturers. 6. After accommodating the said eight persons, the management submitted a proposal before the fourth respondent University on 17.8.2006, for the purpose of their qualification approval. The said qualification approval is necessary for the disbursement of grant-in-aid and paying salary to the said lecturers. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent is not passing order on the ground that the fourth respondent would not consider the proposal, in view of the University Grants Commissions Regulation, which contemplates that the appointment of lecturers in affiliated colleges should be made through a Selection Committee constituted as per the University Grants Commissions Regulation. The said stand of the University is not justified, in view of the minority character of the petitioner-college as the minority management is entitled to appoint lecturers, according to their choice, provided they are fully qualified, as it is a part of administration as guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. In so far as the petitioner-college is concerned, the College Governing Board is. selecting the lecturers, who are the academic experts. In view of the said stand of the fourth respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the eight lecturers appointed in retirement vacancies now accommodated in the permitted vacancies, as referred above, were already appointed in leave vacancies previously in the very same Departments and their qualifications were approved by the fourth respondent by the following orders: Sl. No. Date Particulars with approval proceedings Pages 1. 23.2.1991 Qualification approved by University for L. Padmaja. No. MSU/A/90-91 1 2. 4.3.1994 Qualification approved by University for N.T. Nevaditha. No. MSU/A2-/B92 2 3. 10.3.2000 Qualification approved by University for E. Ebin Raja Merly. No. MSU/CS/QA-6-2000 3 (2007) 1 MLJ 412 at 415 4. 21.2.2002 Qualification approved by University for C. Isaac Sobanaraj. No. MSU/CE/QA/2/2001 4 5. 6.3.2003 Qualification approved by University for M. Moni. No. MSU/CS/QA/2/2003 5 6. 5.10.2005 Qualification approved by University for C. Jeyasekar. No. MSU/CD/QA/4/2005 6 7. 12.10.2005 Qualification approved by University for G. Johncy Christobel. No. MSU/CD/QA/2005 7 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the qualification of another person, namely, D. Aruldhas, who is one among the eight lecturers now accommodated, was also approved for the purpose of approval of leave vacancy and the said order is not presently available. 12.10.2005 Qualification approved by University for G. Johncy Christobel. No. MSU/CD/QA/2005 7 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the qualification of another person, namely, D. Aruldhas, who is one among the eight lecturers now accommodated, was also approved for the purpose of approval of leave vacancy and the said order is not presently available. On the said contention, the learned counsel argued that the subsequent approval is not at all necessary and even assuming it is necessary, the fourth respondent is bound to grant approval, in view of the earlier approval granted for the said qualifications of eight lecturers. 9. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the University has not passed any order and it will consider the qualifications of approval of eight lecturers within a given time. 10. The point in issue is whether the fourth respondent is justified in not passing orders on the approval application, on the ground that the Selection Committee was not formed in the petitioner-minority college, as per the University Grants Commissions Regulation. 11. First of all, the approval of qualification as sought for by the petitioner-management is bound to be approved, in view of the qualification approval given to the 8 lecturers for their appointments in leave vacancies and having satisfied their qualifications for appointment as lecturers by the fourth respondent, in terms of Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, it is not open to the fourth respondent to deny the approval /delay the grant of approval. Rule 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules or Section 15 of the Act, nowhere makes a distinction between appointment in regular vacancies and leave vacancies (temporary vacancies) and in both vacancies fully qualified candidates shall be appointed. Rule 11(3) of the said Rule, is applicable not only for the permanent vacancies, but also for temporary vacancies. Therefore, the fourth respondent, having approved the qualification in respect of the eight lecturers of the petitioner college, while they were appointed in leave vacancies, is bound to consider the same, while passing orders on the request of the petitioner-management, seeking approval of their qualifications for their permanent appointment. 12. The contention of the fourth respondent that the Selection Committee was not constituted, as per the University Grants Commission, is the reason for not passing orders. 12. The contention of the fourth respondent that the Selection Committee was not constituted, as per the University Grants Commission, is the reason for not passing orders. In fact, the fourth respondent refused to approve the qualification of the Principals appointed in CSI Annapackiam College, Nallur, Alankulam Taluk,Tirunelveli District and Sara Tucker College, Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli District which are also minority colleges, on the ground that the said principals were not selected by the Selection Committee, as per the University Grants Commissions norms by an order dated 28.8.2006. The said orders of rejection of approval of qualification were challenged by the said two colleges and the concerned Principals before this Court in W.P. Nos. 9728 and 9729 of 2006, and I have allowed the writ petitions on 2.11.2006, following the order of this Court made in W.P. No. 9760 of 2000, by an order dated 20.3.2002, wherein, the learned single Judge (Hon’ble Mr. Justice. D. Murugesan) in the said order, considered various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same is extracted hereunder: “ 3. The right of the minority institution to administer the educational institutions is protected under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, wherein, it is stated that all minorities, whether based on religion or language shall have the right to establish and administer educational institution of their choice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in more than one case had considered the right of the minority institutions, guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. As early as in the year 1958, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1959 SC 956, has observed that the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) is absolute and any law or executive direction which infringes the substance of that right is void to the extent of infringement. In the judgment in Sindharajbhai v. State of Gujarat Sindharajbhai v. State of Gujarat Sindharajbhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1963 SC 540 , the above law was approved by another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, wherein, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “The right established by Article 30(1) is a Fundamental Right declared in terms of absolute unlike the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Article 19, it is not subject to reasonable restrictions. It is intended to be a real right for the protection to the minorities in the matter of setting up of educational institutions of their own choice. The right is intended to be effective and is not to be whittled down by so called regulative measures conceived in the interest, not of the minority educational institution, but, of the public or the nation as a whole. If every order which, while maintaining the formal character of a minority institution, destroys the power of administration, is held justifiable because it is in the public or national interest, though not in its interest as an educational institution, the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) will be but a “teasing illusion” as a promise of unreality. Regulations which may lawfully be imposed either by legislative or executive action as a condition of receiving grant or of recognition must be directed to make the institution while retaining its character as a minority institution, effective as an educational institution. Such regulation must satisfy a dual test, the test of reasonableness and the test that it is regulative of the educational character of the institution and is conducive to make the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it.” 4. The right of the minority institutions to establish and administer the educational institutions came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat AIR 1974 SC 1389 : (1974) 1 SCC 717 , wherein, provisions contained in Section 33-A(1)(a) of the Gujarat University Act (50 of 1949) was considered. In that Act, it was stipulated that every college shall be under the management of a Governing Body which shall include amongst its members, a representative of the University nominated by the Vice-Chancellor and representatives of the teachers, non-teaching staff and students of the college. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the above provision contained in Section 33-A(1) (b) of the Act cannot be made applicable to the minority institutions as the recruitment of the Principal and members of the teaching staff of college shall vest with the College Committee formed by the Governing Body of the college for selection of the teachers. 5. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the above provision contained in Section 33-A(1) (b) of the Act cannot be made applicable to the minority institutions as the recruitment of the Principal and members of the teaching staff of college shall vest with the College Committee formed by the Governing Body of the college for selection of the teachers. 5. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial AIR 1970 SC 2079 : (1970) 2 SCC 417 , it was observed: “Article 30(1) contemplates two rights which are separated in point of time. The first right is the initial right to establish institutions of minoritys choice. It is irrelevant that in addition to the minority community, others from other minority communities or even from the majority community can take advantage of these institutions. The next part of the right relates to the Administration of such institutions which means “management of the affairs” for the institutions. This management must be free of control so that the founders or their nominees can mould the institutions as they think fit and in accordance with their ideas of how the interests of the community in general and the institutions in particular will be best served. There is, however an exception that the standards of education are not a part of management as such. The minority institutions cannot be allowed to fall below the standards of excellence expected of educational institutions, or under the guise of exclusive right of management, to decline to follow the general pattern.” 6. In N.Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School and Others N.Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School and Others N.Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School and Others AIR 1999 SC 50 : (1998) 6 SCC 674 : 1999-III (Suppl)-LLJ-1470 also considering the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, guaranteed to the minorities’ institutions, the Supreme Court approved the mode of selection adopted by a minority institution, running a college on the following observation: “18. Selection and appointment of Headmaster in a school (or Principal of a college) are of prime importance in administration of that educational institution. The Headmaster is the key post in the running of the school. Selection and appointment of Headmaster in a school (or Principal of a college) are of prime importance in administration of that educational institution. The Headmaster is the key post in the running of the school. He is the hub on which all the spokes of the school are set around whom they rotate to generate result. A school is personified through its Headmaster and he is the focal point on which outsiders look at the school. A bad Headmaster can spoil the entire institution, an efficient and honest Headmaster can improve it by leaps and bounds. The functional efficacy of a school very much depends upon the efficiency and dedication of its Headmaster. This pristine precept remains unchanged despite many changes taking place in the structural patterns of education over the years.” 7 The Supreme Court had in fact taken note of the observations made in the judgment Aldo Maria Patroni v. E.C. Kesavan Aldo Maria Patroni v. E.C. Kesavan Aldo Maria Patroni v. E.C. Kesavan AIR 1965 Ker. 75 , wherein, it is stated: “The post of the Headmaster is of pivotal importance in the life of a school. Around him wheels the tone and temper of the institution; on him depends the continuity of its traditions, the maintenance of discipline and the efficiency of its teaching. The right to choose the Headmaster is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer a school, and we must hold that the imposition of any trammel thereon, except to the extent of prescribing the requisite qualifications and experience cannot but be considered as a violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution. To hold otherwise will be to make the right “ateasing illusion, a promise of unreality.” 8. A Division Bench of this Court reported in Jawahar College Staff Association etc. v. University of Madras and Others Jawahar College Staff Association etc. v. University of Madras and Others Jawahar College Staff Association etc. v. University of Madras and Others 1994 WLR 84 : (1994) 1 MLJ 376 while considering the provisions of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, and considering the right of the minority institutions to fill up the vacancy in the post of lecturers has held that the University is not a Selecting Authority. v. University of Madras and Others 1994 WLR 84 : (1994) 1 MLJ 376 while considering the provisions of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, and considering the right of the minority institutions to fill up the vacancy in the post of lecturers has held that the University is not a Selecting Authority. The authority of the University is only to ensure that the selection of the lecturers is made in accordance with Rules governing the selection and appointment and the candidates selected and are eligible according to the qualifications prescribed by the University. 9. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Hepsy Bell Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others Hepsy Bell Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others Hepsy Bell Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2000) 3 MLJ 397 , while considering the right of the minority institutions to make appointment to the post of Principal after placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School N.Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School N.Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School AIR 1999 SC 50 : (1998) 6 SCC 674 : 1999-III (Suppl)-LLJ-1470 has observed as follows: “It is now a settled position in law, in view of the Apex Courts judgment that the minority school would be entitled to appoint a Principal of their own choice considering the importance of the post of the Principal, even ignoring the seniority of the staff who are working. However, such appointment would have to be of only a person who holds adequate qualifications. That appears to be the only rider in the aforementioned decision cited supra.” 10. Ananalysis of the above decisions on the subject would lead to the conclusion that the right of the minority institutions to establish and administer the educational institutions are protected and guaranteed underArticle 30(1) of the Constitution of India, cannot be interfered with by the University in the matter of selection of teachers. Moreover, the minority institutions are empowered, to form their own methodology for selection to make the appointment to the post of Principal. However, the University is empowered to ensure that only eligible candidates are appointed for the post of Principal. On the above settled position of law, let me now consider the other points raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.” 13. However, the University is empowered to ensure that only eligible candidates are appointed for the post of Principal. On the above settled position of law, let me now consider the other points raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.” 13. The learned Judge ultimately allowed the writ petition and upheld the right of the minority management. 14. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School and Others N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School and Others N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School and Others AIR 1999 SC 50 : (1998) 6 SCC 674 : 1999-III (Suppl)-LLJ-1470 is followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the unreported judgment in the case of P. Durairaj v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others made in W.A. No. 1160 of 2000, dated 25.2.2004. (Their Lordships N. Dhinakar and D. Murugesan) considered as to whether the minority school was entitled to conduct interview and select teacher. In paragraph 5 of the above judgment it is held as follows: ” 5…In this connection, it will not be out of place for us to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School and Others N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School and Others N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School and Others AIR1999 SC 50 : (1998) 6 SCC 674 : 1999-III (Suppl)-LLJ-1470, in regard to the right of the minority institution to select the candidates after the interview. The Supreme Court reiterating the view of its earlier judgment in Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society v. State of Gujarat Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society v. State of Gujarat Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society v. State of Gujarat AIR 1974 SC 1389 quoted the following observations of Justice K.K. Mathew with approval: “It is upon the Principal and teachers of a college that the tone and temper of an educational institution depend. On them would depend its reputation, the maintenance of discipline and its efficiency in teaching. Xaviers College Society v. State of Gujarat AIR 1974 SC 1389 quoted the following observations of Justice K.K. Mathew with approval: “It is upon the Principal and teachers of a college that the tone and temper of an educational institution depend. On them would depend its reputation, the maintenance of discipline and its efficiency in teaching. The right to choose the Principal and to have the teaching conducted by teachers appointed by the management after an overall assessment of their outlook and philosophy is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer an educational institution.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court also quoted with approval the views expressed by Justice H.R. Khanna, which are as follows: “The selection and appointment of teachers for an educational institution is one of the essential ingredients of the right to mange an educational institution and the minorities can plainly be not denied such right of selection and appointment without infringing Article 30(1). Since the right of the minority-institution to conduct the interview was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we need not go into the other questions and also into the question as to whether the sixth respondent school was justified in conducting the interview in appointing the seventh respondent. We, therefore, find no merits in the writ appeal and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.” 15. In the decision reported in the case of St. Marys Higher Secondary School, Karaikal v. Union of India and Others St. Marys Higher Secondary School, Karaikal v. Union of India and Others St. Marys Higher Secondary School, Karaikal v. Union of India and Others 2000 WLR 51, his lordship Mr. Justice. S.S. Subramani, has held that the principle regarding an appointment of Headmaster in a minority school equally applies to the appointment of the teachers also. 16. Here, in this case, the petitioners request is seeking approval of qualification of eight lecturers. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the fourth respondent cannot also contend that the said judgments are not applicable to the approval of the qualification of eight lecturers. 16. Here, in this case, the petitioners request is seeking approval of qualification of eight lecturers. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the fourth respondent cannot also contend that the said judgments are not applicable to the approval of the qualification of eight lecturers. Hence, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the fourth respondent to consider the approval of qualification sought for by the petitioner-management in respect of the eight lecturers, taking note of their approval of qualifications, granted earlier for their appointments in leave vacancies and also the decisions above referred, and pass orders, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected M.P. No. 1 of 2006 is closed. No costs.