(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 03.03.2025 made in W.P(MD)No.3711 of 2025 on the file of this Court.

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 03.03.2025 made in W.P(MD)No.3718 of 2025 on the file of this Court.)

Common Judgment

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Challenging the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (MD) Nos. 3711 and 3718 of 2025, dated 03.03.2025, the State has preferred the present Writ Appeals.

2. The respondent/writ petitioner, a private minority aided college, appointed teaching staff, namely Dr.W.Shyamala and Ms.M.Vijaya Shanthi, as Assistant Professors in the Department of History. When the writ petitioner college sought disbursement of grant-in-aid towards their salary and allowances from the date of their appointments, i.e., 18.06.2018, approval was rejected by the second respondent by proceedings dated 04.12.2024. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed the above Writ Petitions.

3. The rejection was on the ground that six queries were raised by the authorities and that they were not properly complied with. The order dated 04.12.2024 was challenged mainly on the ground that similar queries raised earlier in respect of the very same college had already been considered and decided by this Court in W.P(MD) Nos. 4636 and 4640 of 2021, dated 30.06.2022 [The Secretary, Fatima College Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others].

4. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration that the reasons for rejection were unsustainable in light of the earlier decisions of W.A(MD)Nos.426 & 427 of 2026 the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge of this Court, allowed the Writ Petitions.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/State submitted that the orders of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge, relied upon by the writ Court, pertained only to condition Nos. 4 to 6. Therefore, according to the appellants, the writ petitioner college is bound to furnish replies to condition Nos.1 to 3, and upon receipt of the same, the authorities would consider the matter and pass appropriate orders.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner college submitted that the issues relating to condition Nos. 4 to 6 are no longer res integra, having already been decided by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. It was further submitted that, without prejudice to their rights, the writ petitioner college is willing to furnish replies to condition Nos. 1 to 3, though such details are either already available with the authorities or have been substantially complied with.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. On a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the Division Bench of this Court, on earlier occasions, has categorically held that condition Nos. 4 to 6, which were imposed in the rejection orders, are unsustainable. Despite such findings, similar conditions have once again been introduced while rejecting the application in the present case.

9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, condition Nos.4 to 6 cannot be pressed into service. However, in respect of condition Nos.1 to 3, the writ petitioner college has expressed its readiness to furnish replies. Admittedly, condition No.1 pertains to sanctioned staff fixation, which is available with the office of the appellants; nevertheless, the same has also been sought from the writ petitioner.

10. Therefore, this Court is of the view that furnishing replies to condition Nos.1 to 3 in the order dated 04.12.2024 would not prejudice the rights of the writ petitioner college.

11. In such view of the matter, the writ petitioner college shall furnish replies to condition Nos.1 to 3 in the order dated 04.12.2024 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such replies, the appellants shall pass orders granting approval and disbursing grant-in-aid within a period of one month thereafter, without any further delay.

12. With the above directions, these Writ Appeals are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.