Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 4266 (MAD)

K. Kesavan v. Director of Collegiate Education

2012-10-12

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2012
Judgment :- The petitioner in W.P.No.19085 of 2012 was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology in the third respondent College. The petitioner in W.P.No.19087 of 2012 was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Botany in the third respondent College. Both the posts were sanctioned by the proceedings, dated 26.7.2007 of the first respondent. They were appointed after they underwent selection process. 2. After the appointment, the petitioners are working in the third respondent College and they are taking classes assigned to them. 3. The third respondent applied for qualification approval from the Madras University under section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. Madras University granted qualification approval on 22.3.2011 to Dr.Kesavan, the petitioner in W.P.No.19085 of 2012 and on 20.5.2011 to Dr.Nedumaran, the petitioner in W.P.No.19087 of 2012. The third respondent, after obtaining qualification approval from the Madras University, sought approval of the appointments of the petitioners from the second respondent for the purpose of grant. 4. Since the petitioners were appointed against the sanctioned posts and also their qualification is also approved by the Madras University, the second respondent is bound to grant approval for the appointment of the petitioners. 5. But the second respondent passed the impugned order, dated 9.7.2012 refusing to approve the appointments of the petitioners. The impugned order, dated 9.7.2012 has been passed on the ground that some other persons were selected to the posts that are now occupied by the petitioners and those persons were not given appointment order on the ground that they did not produce service certificate endorsed by the second respondent. 6. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions to quash the aforesaid order, dated 9.7.2012 of the second respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Professor (Zoology) and the Assistant Professor (Botany) respectively. 7. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and sought to sustain the impugned order. The third respondent filed counter affidavit in support of the petitioners. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the order, dated 30.11.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25901 of 2011, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the writ petition has to be allowed as prayed for. 10. The third respondent filed counter affidavit in support of the petitioners. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the order, dated 30.11.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25901 of 2011, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the writ petition has to be allowed as prayed for. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 11. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 12. The learned counsel for the third respondent has supported the claim of the petitioners. The third respondent College sent a proposal on 5.7.2010 for approval of appointment of 13 Assistant Professors including the petitioners herein. The approval was sought for by the third respondent College after obtaining qualification approval for appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Professors. The approval was rejected by the second respondent by order, dated 18.4.2011. In these circumstances, a writ petition was filed by the third respondent College to set aside the order, dated 18.4.2011 and a direction to the respondents was also sought to approve the appointment of 13 Assistant Professors including the petitioners herein. This Court taking note of the fact that the first respondent issued direction to the second respondent on 29.11.2011 to approve the appointment of the Assistant Professors including the petitioners herein and after considering various objections, allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.25901 of 2011, by order dated 30.11.2011. 13. The said judgment is enclosed at page No.31 of Typed set. I have perused the judgment. The order, dated 29.11.2011 of the first respondent to the second respondent to approve the appointment of the Assistant Professors including the petitioners is enclosed in the Typed set at page No.29. I have also perused the same. 14. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court, dated 30.11.2011 in W.P.No.25901 of 2011. A positive direction was issued by this Court to approve the appointment of the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 15. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court, dated 30.11.2011 in W.P.No.25901 of 2011. A positive direction was issued by this Court to approve the appointment of the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 15. Furthermore, since the petitioners were appointed against the sanctioned posts and their qualification is also approved by the Madras University, the second respondent is bound to approve the appointment of the petitioners for the purpose of grant and the second respondent has no other option. 16. 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 petitioners with effect from 16.6.2010. The second respondent is also directed to pass 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 petitions are closed.