ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.5198/A3/2017 dated 11.04.2017 and the consequential proceedings No. Nil dated 01.07.2017 issued by the 4th respondent and the proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.30258/F1/2017 dated 10.11.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent and seeking a direction to the 4th respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as a Lab Assistant with all attendant benefits. 2 . Heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Velu Sammi, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3and Mr.N.Manogaran, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and perused the materials available on record. 3 . The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant in the 4th respondent college in an unaided course on 30.11.1989. Thereafter, he was promoted to the position of Laboratory Assistant with effect from 24.01.2005. On 21.08.2015, the 3rd respondent issued an order of suspension. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo on 07.09.2015 by the 4th respondent by .. citing the allegations as under: (i) unauthorized absence for 39 days; (ii) failure to provide a satisfactory reason for the unauthorized absence upon resuming duty on 10.11.2014; (iii) lack of due care in maintaining the laboratory; (iv) disruption of the institution by lodging complaints before the authorities; and (v) failure to provide a satisfactory explanation, leading to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. 3.1. After completing the enquiry, it was found that the charges against the petitioner were proved. Consequently, the 4th respondent imposed the punishment of removal from service and forwarded the proposal to the 3rd respondent for approval. However, through proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5198/A3/2017 dated 11.04.2017, the 3rd respondent communicated to the 4th respondent that sanction for the proposal was not necessary. The petitioner also challenged the order of dismissal by preferring an appeal before the 2nd respondent. However, in proceedings dated 10.11.2017, the 2nd respondent held that he did not have jurisdiction to pass an order in the appeal, as the matter pertained to a self-financing unaided college. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976, are applicable to the 4th respondent college, even though it is an unaided institution. As per the above regulation, the college should have a college committee, which is responsible for carrying out general administration, appointing teachers, and taking disciplinary action. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976, are applicable to the 4th respondent college, even though it is an unaided institution. As per the above regulation, the college should have a college committee, which is responsible for carrying out general administration, appointing teachers, and taking disciplinary action. The educational agency is bound by the decisions of the college committee. It is further submitted that the 4th respondent ought to have complied with Section 19(1) of the Act, which states that no person shall be removed, dismissed, brought down in rank, or otherwise terminated without the approval of the competent authority. Discussion: 5 . The long and short point put forth by the petitioner is that his order of dismissal required the approval of the 3rd respondent and that he also had the right to appeal before the 2nd respondent. Initially, when he was placed under suspension by the 3rd respondent, he claimed that only the college committee had the authority to initiate action against him, not the 3rd respondent. The same stand was taken by him when the charge memo was issued against him. 6 . Even the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976, prescribes that the college committee is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, it can be concluded that the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the 4th respondent, including the appointment of an inquiry officer, were in accordance with the powers conferred on the college committee. 7. The petitioner did not challenge the charge memo by stating that it was issued by the 3rd respondent, who is incompetent to issue the same. Then the approval for extension of suspension was requested by the 4th respondent college to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent declined to grant approval by stating that the petitioner had been appointed under an unaided self-financing course and the sanction is not necessary. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if it is a self-financed division, the college is still governed by the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act in matters of appointment. The appointment process cannot be carried out without a selection committee even for unaided colleges to ensure fairness and equality in appointments. However, with regard to staff discipline, autonomy is vested in the college committee. The appointment process cannot be carried out without a selection committee even for unaided colleges to ensure fairness and equality in appointments. However, with regard to staff discipline, autonomy is vested in the college committee. Unlike staff members whose salaries are covered by government grants, individuals appointed under the self-financed scheme are not subjected to the prior approval for suspension or post-approval for dismissal. 9 . The petitioner, who has all along stated that the 3rd respondent had no authority to place him under suspension or issue a charge memo, changed his stance after his termination by claiming that the 4th respondent should have obtained prior approval before dismissing him from service. The petitioner does not fall under the jurisdiction of government authorities, even according to his own submissions and hence he cannot maintain an appeal before the 2nd respondent against the punishment imposed on him. The petitioner appears to interpret the rules to suit his convenience at each stage, which cannot be permitted. 10 . Despite it is explicitly made specific in the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent that at the time of the petitioner’s appointment, the 7C form was not obtained and no competent forum involved through an agreement with the college management. It is reiterated that the petitioner’s salary was not paid from government aid or grants. Instead, he was directly appointed by the management and his salary was borne by the management. Therefore, government authorities have no role in approving his suspension or dismissal. For the very same reason the petitioner cannot maintain an appeal before the 2nd respondent. 11. In view of the above stated reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions if any is closed.