R ELANGOVAN Vs. TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in letter No. 3059/e2/2003-4, dated 25. 9. 2003 and the consequential order dated 13. 10. 2003 of the fourth respondent, quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 and 3 to approve the petitioner's appointment as Lecturer in English in the fourth respondent College w. e. f. 13. 7. 2000 for the purpose of grant.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner would submit that he passed M. A. (English) with 54. 51% in the year 1990 and also passed out M. Phil. in the year 1991; that thereafter he worked as a Lecturer in English at Pachaiappa's college (Evening Section) from 1991 to 1996; that he joined the New College on 15. 7. 1996 in the permanent vacancy as a Lecturer in English and worked upto 30. 4. 2000 and joined the fourth respondent college on 13. 7. 2000 in the permanent vacancy as Lecturer in English; that Pachiappas (Evening Section) is run on self-financing basis while the New College and the fourth respondent are aided colleges getting cent per cent aid from the first respondent; that both the self-financing college and the aided colleges are private colleges under Section 2 (8) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act (in short 'tnpcr Act'); that Pachiappa's College (Evening Section) and the New College as well as the fourth respondent are affiliated to the second respondent University; that as per Section 15 of the TNPCR Act, the second respondent is the competent authority to prescribe and approve the qualification of teachers appointed in the Private colleges affiliated to them and hence the New College sought approval for his qualification to hold the post of Lecturer and the second respondent in their order dated 2. 11. 1998 approved his qualification to hold the post of Lecturer w. e. f. 15. 7. 1996 in the New College and while approving his qualification, the second respondent rounded of his marks in M. A. (English) from 54. 51% to 55% for the purpose of higher education and for appointment as Lecturer in the affiliated colleges.

(3.) THE petitioner would further submit that after he joined the fourth respondent on 13. 7. 2000, the fourth respondent sought approval from the second respondent for his appointment relating to his qualification and the second respondent refused to approve his qualification in their letter dated 12. 12. 2000 addressed to the fourth respondent without noticing and taking into account the earlier approval granted by them in their letter dated 2. 11. 1998 and he made an appeal to the second respondent through the fourth respondent about the earlier order dated 2. 11. 1998 of the second respondent granting approval for his appointment in the New College and the same was favourably considered by the second respondent and the Syndicate of the second respondent in their resolution dated 9. 3. 2001 resolved to approve his appointment relating to qualification in the background of earlier approval granted by them; that it was also decided by the second respondent as a matter of policy that in respect of candidates whose qualifications were approved and got lapsed due to break in service, the earlier approval would continue, if the break does not exceed one year and in view of the said resolution of the Syndicate of the second respondent dated 9. 3. 2001 taking a general decision as stated above, the earlier approval granted by them continues to be valid and no fresh approval is necessary and in his case, there is actually no break and the break period 1. 5. 2000 to 12. 7. 2000 is the vacation period.