Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 4265 (MAD)

G. Ramesh v. Director of Collegiate Education

2012-10-12

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2012
Judgment :- The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Commerce in the permanent vacancy by an order, dated 29.4.2010 and he joined the post on 16.6.2010 in the third respondent College. After appointment, the third respondent College sought for approval to the qualification of the petitioner from Madras University under section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. It is not in dispute that though initially it was declined, later by the order, dated 30.11.2011 of this Court, in W.P.No.25901 of 2011, the qualification of the petitioner was approved on 16.5.2012. 2. While so, the third respondent sought for approval of the appointment of the petitioner in its letter dated 29.5.2012, from the second respondent for the purpose of grant. The same was rejected by the second respondent by an order, dated 2.7.2012. The reason given in the impugned order, dated 2.7.2012 is that Mrs.S.Gayathri and Mr.R.Suresh were selected for the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce), but they were not given appointment order on the ground that they did not produce service certificate endorsed by the second respondent and on the other hand, though the petitioner was in the waiting list, he was given appointment order. 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the aforesaid order, dated 2.7.2012 of the second respondent and sought for a direction to the second respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 16.6.2010, i.e. from the date of appointment. 4. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed common counter affidavit refuting the allegations and they sought to sustain the impugned order. The third respondent filed counter affidavit in support of the writ petitioner. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor of Commerce in the third respondent College by order, dated 29.4.2010 and he joined the post on 16.6.2010 in the third respondent College. Thereafter, he is discharging duties in the said College for the past two years. 7. The third respondent sought approval for qualification of the petitioner from Madras University under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. Madras University refused to approve the qualification of the petitioner. The same was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.15944 of 2011. 7. The third respondent sought approval for qualification of the petitioner from Madras University under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. Madras University refused to approve the qualification of the petitioner. The same was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.15944 of 2011. This Court by order, dated 16.2.2012 allowed the writ petition and issued direction to the Madras University to approve the qualification of the petitioner. 8. Based on the order of this Court, dated 16.2.2012 in W.P.No.15944 of 2011, the qualification of the petitioner was approved on 16.5.2012. 9. After getting qualification approval from Madras University, the third respondent College sought for approval to the appointment of the petitioner from the second respondent for the purpose of grant, through its proposal, dated 29.5.2012. The same was rejected by the second respondent by the impugned order, dated 2.7.2012. 10. The only reason given in the impugned order is that Mrs.S.Gayathri and Mr.R.Suresh were selected by the third respondent College for the post of Assistant Professor of Commerce and they were not given appointment order on the ground that they did not produce service certificate endorsed by the second respondent and on the other hand, appointment order was given to the petitioner who was in the waiting list. 11. It is not the case of the second respondent that Mrs.S.Gayathri and Mr.R.Suresh made a complaint to the second respondent that they were not given appointment order. They did not approach the second respondent to get endorsement in the service certificate. There was no endorsement in the service certificate that was produced by Mrs.S.Gayathri and Mr.R.Suresh at the time of selection. It is also stated that both Mrs.S.Gayathri and Mr.R.Suresh have not chosen to question the non selection and they have not approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to give appointment order. In these circumstances, the second respondent is not justified in passing the impugned order refusing to approve the appointment of the petitioner who has been serving in the third respondent College for the past two years. It is a different matter if those persons are agitating against the appointment of the petitioner. As the petitioner was in the waiting list, when the persons above him did not produce required certificates, the College had no option except to appoint the petitioner. It is a different matter if those persons are agitating against the appointment of the petitioner. As the petitioner was in the waiting list, when the persons above him did not produce required certificates, the College had no option except to appoint the petitioner. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the second respondent is not justified in passing the impugned order refusing approval for appointment of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is quashed. 12. I am of the considered view that the second respondent has no other option except to approve the appointment of the petitioner, when the petitioner was appointed after following due selection process and the qualification was also duly approved by the Madras University. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. A direction is issued to the second respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner for the purpose of grant with effect from 16.6.2010. The second respondent is also directed to issue appropriate orders in the above terms, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.