Petitioner appointed Assistant Professor in Chemistry sought approval of his appointment; the college had used the 100-point roster instead of the 200-point roster applicable to post-15.09.2007 vacancies. The court upheld the rejection but directed grant-in-aid salary for the period worked.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD)No. 6853 of 2018
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.22165 & 22166 of 2023,
6600 to 6602 & 13001 of 2018
N. Muneeswaran ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State represented by its Secretary, Collegiate Educational Department, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai - 9
2. The Director, Collegiate Educational Department, EVK Sampath Building, DPI Compound, Chennai - 6
1/9
3. The Regional Joint Director, Collegiate Education Department, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
4. The Secretary, Aditanar College of Arts and Science, Veerapandipatinam,
Tiruchendur, Tuticorin District.
5. The Assistant Director,
Professional and Executive Employment Office, Madurai, Madurai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in connection with the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent vide in No. Uni/4-Ms-Est-1/29/2014-2015 dated 14.05.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pass the proper order to issue the suitable permanent appointment order of Assistant Professor in Chemistry Department in the 4th respondents college with all monetary benefits to the petitioner herein.
2/9
For Petitioner : M/s.G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondents : Mr.G.Venkatesh Kumar
Special Government Pleader, for R-1 to R-3 & R-5 MR.D.Srinivasa Raghavan, for R-4
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent dated 14.05.2014 and consequently direct the respondents to pass the proper order to issue the suitable permanent appointment order of Assistant Professor in Chemistry - Department in the 4th respondent’s college with all monetary benefits to the petition er herein.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed on - 01.03.2010 as Assistant Professor in the Chemistry Department and worked for sev - eral months, but the official respondents refused to grant approval through the im pugned order. The reason for refusal is that the college instead of following the 200-
3/9
point roster had followed the 100-point roster. The contention of the petitioner is that - it was not his mistake, but it is mistake on the part of the college for that the petition er cannot be denied approval.
4/9
Collegiate Education and the letter dated 20.01.2009 is extracted hereunder:
“ ghhitapy ; ; fhZk ; jq ; fs ; fbjj ; jpy ; gzpJwg ; G nra ; Jss Ntjpapay ; ; tphpTiuahsh ; jpU.Mh ; .mNrhfFkhh ; ; vd ; ghh ; rhhghd fhypg ; ; gzpaplj ; ij g+h ; j ; jp nraa ,dr ; ; Row ; rp Kiw rhhghf njspTiu Nfhug ; ; gl ; Ls ; sJ.
Nkw ; fhz ; njspTiu rhh ; ghf jqfs ; ; fy ; Y}hpapy ; 100 vz ; zk ; nfhzl ,dr ; Row ; ; rp Kiwapy ; nraag ; ; gll ; epakdq ; fSfF mLj ; ; jjhf css ,dr ; Row ; ; rp Kiwia njhlh ; e ; J gpd ; gw ; WkhsW njhptpffyhfpwJ. ; ”
5. At this juncture the petitioner submitted he had worked for more than 50 months without salary. This Court is of the considered opinion since the petitioner had worked and has discharged his duties during this period, he is entitled to receive salary for the period he worked. The Learned Special Government Pleader submitted
5/9
that the college may be directed to pay the salary. This Court is of the considered - opinion that the petitioner’s appointment may be considered as “leave vacancy ap pointment” or temporary appointment, in such circumstances the salary may be paid by the government itself as grant-in-aid.
6. For the reasons stated above this Court upholds the rejection order, - consequently the petitioner is not entitled to approval. However, the petitioner is enti tled to salary from the date of his appointment until the date of rejection. The salary for this period shall be paid by the government’s grant-in-aid
7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes
16.04.2025
6/9
KSA
To
1. The State represented by its Secretary, Collegiate Educational Department, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai - 9
2. The Director, Collegiate Educational Department, EVK Sampath Building, DPI Compound, Chennai - 6
3. The Regional Joint Director, Collegiate Education Department, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
4. The Secretary, Aditanar College of Arts and Science, Veerapandipatinam, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin District.
5. The Assistant Director,
Professional and Executive Employment Office, Madurai,
7/9
Madurai District.
8/9
S.SRIMATHY, J.
KSA
ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No. 6853 of 2018
DATED : 16.04.2025
9/9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether approval of the petitioner's appointment as Assistant Professor could be granted when the college applied the 100-point roster instead of the mandated 200-point roster.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary for the period he worked despite rejection of approval.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N. Muneeswaran
The State represented by its Secretary, Collegiate Educational Department, Chennai
The Director, Collegiate Educational Department, Chennai
The Regional Joint Director, Collegiate Education Department, Tirunelveli
The Secretary, Aditanar College of Arts and Science, Veerapandipatinam
The Assistant Director, Professional and Executive Employment Office, Madurai
S.Srimathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
