THIAGARAJAR COLLEGE Vs. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 2669/E1/2018, dated 23.10.2019, as illegal and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents grant permission to the petitioner's college to fill up 42 sanctioned non-teaching staff posts by considering the proposal dated 08.07.2019, submitted by the petitioner College without any further delay.

(2.) The petitioner College is a private aided College. According to the petitioner, 61 Non-teaching posts were sanctioned to the petitioner College. Out of 61 posts, 42 posts are vacant due to retirement, resignation, death and promotion. Each and every post is very essential to run the petitioner College. There is no necessity to obtain prior permission from the respondents to fill up the vacant sanctioned post. By way of abundant caution, the petitioner College submitted proposal dated 08.07.2019, seeking prior permission to fill up 42 sanctioned non-teaching staff post in the petitioner College. The second respondent did not pass any order. The petitioner College filed W.P(MD).No.19777 of 2019 for a direction to the second respondent to grant prior permission to the petitioner College to fill up 42 sanctioned non-teaching staff posts by considering the proposal dated 08.07.2019 submitted by the petitioner College. This Court, by order dated 16.09.2019, considering the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2013(7) MLJ 641 (P.Ravichandran Vs.State of Tamil Nadu), wherein it was held that as per Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rule, 1976, there is no necessity to obtain prior permission, directed the second respondent to grant prior permission to fill up 42 sanctioned non-teaching staff posts, as per proposal submitted by the petitioner College. On receipt of the said order, the second respondent by impugned proceedings, informed the petitioner College that it is not possible for the second respondent to grant prior approval based on the order of this Court and he has forwarded the order of this Court to the first respondent. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rule, 1976, the first respondent is the authority to sanction the posts. But, in case of filling up the sanctioned vacant posts, the second respondent alone is the competent authority and the same need not be forwarded to the first respondent. The learned counsel further contended that there is no necessity for the petitioner to obtain prior permission and the prior permission is now sought for only by way of abundant caution and prayed for allowing the Writ petition.