M RECTHAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W. P. No. 11762 of 1989 is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the 4th respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of assistant with effect from 23. 8. 1987 and consequently pay all the arrears of salary.

(2.) W. P. No. 6693 of 1990 is filed by the petitioner college, who is the 4th respondent in W. P. No. 11762 of 1989, for the issuance of a writ of declaration to direct that Rule ll (4) ( i ) and (ii) of the Rules framed under Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation)Act, 1976 is ultra vires Constitution of India, illegal and void in so far as the petitioner's institution, which claims as a minority institution, is concerned.

(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1 to A in W. P. No. 6693 of 1990, it is claimed that the government has in G. O. Ms. No. 1051, Education, dated 11. 8. 1989 accorded permission to approve the appointment of the 5th respondent directly to the post of Assistant with effect from 2. 3. 1987 as a special case. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit that consequent to the promotion of one P. Gopala n Nair with effect from 2. 3. 1987, the said post has become vacant in the college, and that the college has to promote the Typist, the 4th respondent in w. P. No. 6693 of 1990, in any one of the two vacancies if her claim that she is the senior most is correct. A reference to Rule ll (4) ( i )of the Rules is also made in the counter affidavit. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit that as per the existing Rule, a post in the non-teaching staff is to be filled up from senior most persons in the lower category, that the staff working in an institution will definitely have better knowledge of government and management Rules and as such the 5th respondent has been appointed.