Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.) The writ petition has been filed to call for the impugned order of the fourth respondent in Rc.No.218/2005 – 2006 dated 1/8/2005, to quash the same and direct respondents 1, 2 and 4 to permit the petitioner to join in the third respondent University as the Director of Distance Education on lien basis for three years. 2. Mr. R. Thiayagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the petitioner has joined the fourth respondent College in the year 1980 as Assistant Professor and he is now working as Reader and Head of the Department of Philosophy. The petitioner is serving in the College for the past 25 years with a good record of service. When applications had been called for by the third respondent University, in order to contribute to the cause of education for the post of Director of Distance Education, the petitioner has also applied for the same and the said application has been forwarded by the fourth respondent and the Registrar of the third respondent University by proceedings dated 8/7/2005, referring about the resolution of its Syndicate dated 8/7/2005 has informed that the petitioner was appointed as the Director, Centre for Distance Education for Bharathidasan University for a period of three years with effect from the date of joining. The copy of the said appointment letter has also been marked to the petitioner's College namely the fourth respondent herein. In spite of this, the petitioner, by letter dated 9/7/2005, addressed to the second respondent with a copy to the fourth respondent, sought for permission to work in the third respondent University for a period of three years on lien basis. But, the fourth respondent, by his impugned communication dated 1/8/2005 quoting a resolution of the College Committee dated 31/12/2004 has informed that the College Committee has already decided not to grant lien to any teaching staff and in respect of the petitioner also. 3. According to the learned Senior Counsel, as per G.O.Ms.No.1594 Education (Z2) Department dated 7/11/1989, the teaching staff can be relieved and they can serve in any other Institution and as such, the petitioner cannot be denied permission. 4. 3. According to the learned Senior Counsel, as per G.O.Ms.No.1594 Education (Z2) Department dated 7/11/1989, the teaching staff can be relieved and they can serve in any other Institution and as such, the petitioner cannot be denied permission. 4. Today, when the above matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Senior Counsel brought to the notice of this Court, the proceedings of the Registrar, Bharathidasan University, Palkalaiperur, Tiruchirapalli dated 11/7/2005 wherein it has been stated that similar permissions have already been granted. 5. But, according to the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent College, on the earlier occasion, when two staff members have been relieved, the respondent Department had not permitted them to fill up those vacancies and as such, those posts have been kept vacant affecting the interest of the College. Based on this apprehension, permission was not granted and if the petitioner is resigning his job and joining the other institution, they cannot have any objection. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Department also submitted that if any leave vacancies are caused due to any reason, the respondent Management is permitted to fill up the vacancies temporarily and as such, the case of the fourth respondent College can also be considered, in the event of them making an application to that effect. 7. This is a case wherein the petitioner has got an opportunity to serve in a better post for a period of three years. But at the same time, the interest of the students of the fourth respondent College also should not be affected if the petitioner is relieved to go on lien basis. But, as far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, his appointment in the third respondent University is a fresh appointment by way of direct recruitment and as such, the Government Order will not apply to the case of the petitioner. But, even the Management also does not have any objection except apprehension that they will not be permitted to fill up the vacancies caused by relieving the petitioner so as to enable him to join the third respondent University. 8. Since the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Education Department has pointed out that in all the institutions wherein the temporary vacancies arose, the Department has given permission to fill up the said temporary vacancies. 9. 8. Since the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Education Department has pointed out that in all the institutions wherein the temporary vacancies arose, the Department has given permission to fill up the said temporary vacancies. 9. In my opinion, the Management of the fourth respondent College has to make an application to the Authorities seeking permission to fill the vacancy which will be caused by permitting the petitioner to join the third respondent University on lien basis, within a period of 10 days from today and the respondent Department namely the second respondent thereafter, within a period of ten days, has to pass orders relating to the permission to fill-up the vacancy to be caused on relieving the petitioner from the fourth respondent on lien basis to the University, so as to enable him to join the third respondent without any delay, since the petitioner was appointed in the third respondent University as early as 8/7/2005. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the third respondent shall not extend further more time so as to enable the petitioner to join the third respondent University immediately. 10. Hence as stated above, within a period of ten days, the fourth respondent has to make necessary application seeking permission to fill up the temporary vacancy to be caused by relieving the petitioner from today and thereafter, within a period of ten days, the second respondent has to pass order keeping in view of the directions issued in the proceedings dated 11/7/1991 on getting the positive direction from the second respondent. The fourth respondent is directed to relieve the petitioner forth with so as to enable him to join the third respondent University. 11. With the above direction, the writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected WPMP.No.37221 of 2005 is closed.