(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for records on the file of the 3rd respondent made in O.Mu.No.18458/E1/2025 dated 29.01.2026 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to accord permission to the petitioner college to fill up the sanctioned posts of 11 Group D non teaching staffs viz., Watchman - 2, Gardener-2, Sweeper - 5, Waterman 1 and Marker 1 in the sanctioned vacancies and to approve the said appointments.)

1. The petitioner herein is a Private Aided College and various posts of teaching and non-teaching were sanctioned by the Government and admitted to grant-in-aid.

2. The dispute, in this writ petition, is with regard to the nongrant of approval for filling up of eleven non-teaching sanctioned posts existing in the petitioner – College since the year 2011. The attempts, that are being made by the petitioner – College to fill up the said eleven non-teaching posts since the year 2011, remained unsuccessful for all these years, despite repeated attempts made by the petitioner – College to obtain prior approval for filling up of these eleven vacancies in Group-D posts. Originally, the request made by the petitioner – College seeking prior approval for filling up of the posts in question was negatived by the respondent – Authority, on the ground that in terms of the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.49, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 14.05.2002 and G.O.(Ms) No. 219, Higher Education (D1) Department, dated 24.10.2013, Group-D posts (except the post of Office Assistant), in Aided Colleges and Schools are required to be filled in by way of outsourcing. However, at a later point of time, the said Government Orders were subject matter of challenge before a learned Division Bench of this Court and the learned Division Bench, vide Judgment dated 27.01.2025 in W.A.No.2348 of 2024, has been pleased to hold that the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 14.05.2002, have no application to the Private Aided Colleges and Schools and the said Government Orders would apply only to the Government Colleges and Schools. Insofar as G.O.(Ms) No.219, dated 24.10.2013, is concerned, the same was quashed by a learned Single Judge of this Court and the same was confirmed by the learned Division Bench of this Court. It is now settled that the said Government Orders have no application to the Private Aided Colleges, like the petitioner – College herein. The attempts that are being made by the petitioner – College seeking approval to fill up the said eleven vacancies since the year 2011 remained unsuccessful and finally, through the impugned proceedings dated 29.01.2026, the request of the petitioner – College was rejected by the third respondent, on the ground that the vacancies in question are required to be filled in by way of outsourcing in terms of the orders passed in G.O.(Ms) No.66, dated 03.04.2025. It is aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 29.01.2026, issued by the third respondent, the petitioner – College is before this Court.

3. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the request of the petitioner – College seeking prior approval to fill up the eleven vacancies in Group-D posts was negatived not basing upon the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 14.05.2002 and G.O.(Ms) No.219, dated 24.10.2013, but the same was basing upon the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.66, dated 03.04.2025, and in terms of the said Government Order in G.O. (Ms) No.66, dated 03.04.2025, all the eleven vacancies in the petitioner – College are required to be filled up by way of outsourcing only and thus, it is stated that the impugned proceedings has been issued strictly in accordance with law.

4. Heard Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.S.Balamurugan, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan, learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu appearing for the respondents.

5. Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – College, contended that the orders issued in G.O.(Ms) No.66, dated 03.04.2025, has not been given retrospective effect and therefore, the restrictions imposed under the said Government Order have no application to the posts, which were existing on the date of issuance of the said Government Order and therefore, the impugned proceedings issued by the respondents is liable to be declared as illegal as the same was issued basing upon the said G.O.(Ms) No.66, dated 03.04.2025. He also further laid a stress on the phrase, namely, “vacancies arising” in the said G.O.(Ms) No.66, dated 03.04.2025 and contended that the same would only take into it's purview the vacancies that may arise after 03.04.2025 and have no application to the vacancies that were already existing by the date of the said Government Order. He also placed reliance on a decision of the learned Division Bench of this Court, dated 17.11.2025 in W.A.No.3429 of 2025 in The Government of Tamil Nadu and others vs. National College, wherein the learned Division Bench of this Court has held that the orders issued in G.O.(Ms) No.66, dated 03.04.2025, are only prospective and have no application to the vacancies that arose prior to the said Government Order. At the same time, Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the orders passed by the Honourable Apex Court, dated 04.05.2026 in S.L.P.(C) No. 12499 of 2026, wherein the Honourable Apex Court has been pleased to dismiss the said special leave petition while directing that the above decision dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD) No.3429 of 2025 shall not operate as a precedent qua the similarly situated persons.

6. On the other hand, Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan, learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu appearing for the respondents, contended that, though the orders issued in G.O.(Ms) No.66, dated 03.04.2025, were not given retrospective effect, the request made by the petitioner – College to fill up the eleven vacancies in Group-D posts has come up for consideration before the third respondent only after issuance of the said Government Order i.e., G.O.(Ms) No.66, dated 03.04.2025, and therefore, the same is required to be considered by applying the orders issued in the said Government Order.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the entire materials on record.

8. A perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 29.01.2026 would disclose that the request for prior approval to fill up the eleven vacancies in Group-D posts made by the petitioner – College was rejected solely placing reliance upon the orders issued in G.O.(Ms) No.66, dated 03.04.2025. Therefore, the only issue, that is required to be considered by this Court, is whether the orders issued in G.O.(Ms) No.66, dated 03.04.2025, will have application to the eleven vacancies in Group-D posts, in respect of which the petitioner – College sought for prior approval or not.

9. Through the said Government Order, a new clause was introduced in Sub Rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 (in short, “the Rules, 1976”). The said clause reads as under:

                     “(ii) in case of vacancies arising in Group-D category posts (except Office Assistant), the vacancies shall be filled up through outsourcing and on contract basis only, in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government from time to time and by meeting the expenditure from the funds of the college:”

10. No doubt, the respondents, since long time, have been taking a stand that the Group-D posts in Private Aided Colleges and Schools are required to be filled in by way of outsourcing by placing reliance in G.O.Ms.No. 49, dated 14.05.2002 and G.O.(Ms) No.219, dated 24.10.2013 etc. However, the said attempts made by the respondents were thwarted by this Court at the instance of various Private Aided Colleges time and again. It is only on the failure of the attempts made by the respondents herein to ensure the filling up of vacancies in the Private Aided Colleges and Schools in Group-D posts by way of outsourcing, the respondents have finally resorted to amend the Rules, 1976 and accordingly, issued orders in G.O.(Ms) No.66, dated 03.04.2025 amending Rule 11 the Rules, 1976 as noted above.

11. In the context of the above background, the effect of Clause (ii) of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1976, is required to be examined.

12. The above Rule specifically deals with the vacancies arising in Group-D category posts, except “Office Assistant” and in terms of the said amendment, the vacancies arising in Group-D posts shall be filled in through outsourcing and on contract basis only. Therefore, as rightly contended by Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, the phrase “vacancies arising” in G.O.(Ms) No.66, dated 03.04.2025, do assume significance. Admittedly, the amended Clause (ii) of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1976, has not been given retrospective effect. The plain reading of Clause (ii) of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1976, ordinarily refers to the vacancies that arising after the said Rule comes into force, but not the vacancies that had already arisen and were existing on that date. It is settled law that, in the absence of any express provision or necessary implication in the statute or the rules providing for retrospective effect, they shall operate prospectively. The phrase “vacancies arising” is future oriented. Had the Rule Making Authority intended to cover the existing vacancies also, they would have ordinarily used the expression “existing and future vacancies”, “a vacancy existing or arising”, “all vacant posts” etc. In the instant case, the Rule Making Authority has consciously used the phrase “vacancies arising”. As already noted above, it is not as if the rule was amended by introducing Clause (ii) in Sub Rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1976, just like that. But, it was preceded by series of litigations before this Court and various Government Orders issued from time time dealing with the very same issue and as a result of failure by the respondents to apply the said Government Orders and to subject the Group-D posts to be filled in by way of outsourcing or on contract basis, the Rule Making Authority has consciously not chosen either to give retrospective effect to the Rule or to use the language that would make the Clause applicable to all the vacancies that were existing as on the date of introduction of the said Clause vide G.O.(Ms) No.66, dated 03.04.2025.

13. In the light of the above, this Court is unhesitant to arrive at a conclusion that the amended Rule, which was introduced through G.O.(Ms) No.66, dated 03.04.2025, is only prospective in effect and will have no application to the vacancies in Group-D posts that were existing prior to the date of commencement of the said Clause (ii) of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1976.

14. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner – College has commenced the recruitment process for all the eleven vacancies in Group-D posts as early as in the year 2011 and the said attempts were continued till 18.12.2025 when the final proposal was submitted by the petitioner – College seeking prior approval for filling up of the eleven vacancies in Group-D posts existing in the petitioner – College. In the absence of any dispute with regard to the fact that the eleven vacancies in Group-D posts in question are all sanctioned posts, the right of the petitioner – College to fill up the said vacancies in accordance with the Rules existing as on the date of commencement of the recruitment process cannot be denied by placing reliance on a rule that came into existence at a later point of time.

15. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings dated 29.01.2026 issued by the third respondent, rejecting the request made by the petitioner – College for filling up of eleven vacancies in Group-D posts, is highly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable.

16. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 29.01.2026, issued by the third respondent, is hereby quashed and the petitioner – College is granted liberty to resubmit the proposal returned under the impugned proceedings and on such resubmission of the said proposal, the respondents shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law, without applying the Clause (ii) of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1976, introduced vide G.O. (Ms) No.66, dated 03.04.2025, and grant approval for filling up of the vacancies in question, if the proposal is otherwise in order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of resubmission of the proposal by the petitioner – College.

17. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

18. Before parting with the matter, keeping in view the repeated litigations initiated before this Court in respect of non-consideration of the request for grant of approval for filling up of the vacancies, non-consideration of the proposals seeking approval of appointment etc., this Court intends to issue certain directions to the respondents. Despite this Court tried to ascertain the reasons for the abnormal delay in consideration of such requests made by the Managements / Schools, no acceptable reasons are forthcoming in any of the cases that sofar have come up before this Court. It is only when the litigation initiated either by the respective College or by the respective employee, the Educational Authorities are moving in the matter and taking up the said proposals and only after appropriate orders are passed by this Court, the respondents are either granting approval or rejecting the proposal for approval on whatsoever grounds. It is because of the lethargic attitude on the part of the Educational Authorities both at the District level and at the level of Joint Director / Director, the abnormal delays are noticed.

19. At the same time, it is also noticed that the respondent – Authorities are under an obligation to issue appropriate staff fixation orders every academic year considering the 1st August of every year as a crucial date. But, the staff fixation orders are never issued immediately after 1st August, but, they were issued either at the fag end of the year or just before closure of the academic year. This is yet another aspect of the matter, which gives scope for multiple litigations before this Court and creating disturbance to both the students, the teaching staff and the Managements forcing them to approach this Court.

20. In the light of the above, as the lethargic attitude on the part of the Educational Authorities is the root cause for the multiple litigations before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the second respondent herein shall issue appropriate guidelines / circulars prescribing the timelines for granting prior approval for filling up of vacancies, for approval of the appointments made by the Private Aided Colleges / Schools and also to fix specific timelines for staff fixation etc., and also for issuing appropriate orders with regard to the staff fixation every year. It is not only the second respondent herein, but, it is also for the Director of School Education and the Director of Elementary Education also should issue orders as above fixing timelines for various aspects as noted above and any other aspects they may deem it appropriate. Therefore, this Court is inclined to direct the second respondent to issue appropriate guidelines / circular dealing with the above aspects or any other aspects, which he may deem fit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

21. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Director of School Education, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006 and the Director of Elementary Education, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

22. List the matter on 16.09.2026 for the limited purpose of reporting compliance by the second respondent and other Directors, as directed above.