(Prayer in W. A. (MD) No.1369 of 2026: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the Order dated October 24, 2025 passed in W.P. (MD) No.24856 of 2025 on the file of this Court.
In C.M.P. (MD) No.11867 of 2026: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed praying to Stay the operation of the Order dated October 24, 2025 passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No.24856 of 2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal and thus render justice.)
R. Sakthivel, J.
1. This Writ Appeal is filed at the instance of the respondents in W.P. (MD) No.24856 of 2025, assailing the Order dated October 24, 2025 passed therein by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking to quash the fourth appellant's proceedings dated May 07, 2025 in O. Mu. No. 3682/e2/2025 and seeking consequential direction to the respondents therein to approve the appointment of 7 Office Assistants in the writ petitioner's college and disburse grant-in-aid towards their salary and allowances with effect from the respective dates of their appointment without reference to G.O. Ms. No.128, Finance (Ze-Bag) Department, dated February 21, 2006.
2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, hereinafter, the respondent herein who had filed the aforesaid Writ Petition will be addressed as the writ petitioner, while the appellants herein will be continued to be addressed as appellants.
3. Brief facts are as follows:
3.1. The writ petitioner's college is a minority educational institution partly aided by Government of Tamil Nadu. It was conferred with autonomous status by University Grants Commission [UGC]. There are 4134 students currently studying in the college, and there are 200 teaching staffs and 100 non-teaching staffs working in the college. Out of which, 97 teaching staff and 56 non-teaching staffs are receiving staff grant from the Government of Tamil Nadu. Out of the said 56 nonteaching posts receiving staff grant, 23 posts were lying vacant. Of that, the college filled 14 non-teaching posts including 7 Office Assistant posts with staffs who were serving the college for long number of years under management pay.
3.2. The writ petitioner's college sent a proposal to the third appellant on August 22, 2024 for the purpose of getting approval for their appointment and disbursement of grant-in-aid towards their salary from the respective dates of appointment. Much later, the fourth appellant, vide proceedings dated May 07, 2025 in O. Mu. No.3682/e2/2025, interalia rejected the proposal qua appointment of seven Office Assistants to the aforesaid posts, citing that as per G.O. Ms. No.128, Finance (Ze-Bag) Department, dated February 21, 2006 and the Letter issued by the Director of Collegiate Education in Na. Ka. No.17958/g3/2018 dated April 26, 2018, apart from appointment of one Office Assistant for Principal, appointment of Office Assistants can be done only in 12:1 ratio, that is to say, only one Office Assistant can be appointed for every 12 non-teaching staffs, and as such, appointment of only 2 Office Assistants can be permitted in case of the writ petitioner's college. Another reason for returning the proposal is that the appointments were made in the year 2018, while the proposal was submitted only on August 22, 2024. Accordingly, the fourth appellant inter-alia rejected the proposal to appoint seven Office Assistants, whose particulars are as hereunder:
| S. No. | Name | Name of the Post | Date of Appointment | Remarks / Vacancy Details |
| 1 | Mrs. K. Kalyani | Office Assistant | May 02, 2018 | Due to the promotion of Mr. V. Venis as Mechanic on May 01, 2018 F.N. |
| 2 | Mrs. C. Mahalakshmi | Office Assistant | June 01, 2018 | Due to the promotion of Mr. R. Gomathinathan as Library Assistant on June 01, 2018 F.N. |
| 3 | Mrs. S. Alice Mary | Office Assistant | July 02, 2018 | Due to the promotion of Mrs. P. Nirmala as Library Assistant on July 02, 2018 F.N. |
| 4 | Mrs. S. Sathya Kala | Office Assistant | August 01, 2019 | Due to the promotion of Mr. R. Boominathan as Record Clerk on August 01, 2019 F.N. |
| 5 | Mrs. S. Meenakumari | Office Assistant | June 01, 2022 | Due to the promotion of Mrs. R. Loyola Prince as Library Assistant on June 01, 2022 F.N. |
| 6 | Mrs. D. Sahaya Hilda Mary | Office Assistant | July 03, 2023 | Due to the promotion of Mrs. P. Shanthi Reka as Record Clerk on July 01, 2023 F.N. |
| 7 | Mrs. M. Kavitha | Office Assistant | May 02, 2024 | Due to the promotion of Mr. G. Sai Sankar as Library Assistant on May 01, 2024 F.N. |
5. Case of the appellants in the Writ Petition is that without challenging G.O. Ms. No.128, Finance (Ze-Bag) Department, dated February 21, 2006, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. Further, the alleged appointments were made between 2018 and 2024 but the proposals were sent only in the year 2024, i.e., there was a delay in sending the proposals. Further, as per the G.O. Ms. No.128, Finance (Ze-Bag) Department, dated February 21, 2006, only 3 Office Assistant posts are eligible (one post for officer & two posts for college office). Hence, seeking appointment of more Office Assistants is totally unsustainable, which will create heavy financial burden to the Government. Accordingly, the appellants sought to dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. The learned Single Judge upon hearing either side, by following the decision of this Court in W.P. Nos.7819 of 2024 and 9005 of 2025 dated March 19, 2025, which was in turn rendered following a Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated July 19, 2019 made in W.A. Nos. 2096 and 2124 of 2019, allowed the Writ Petition.
7. Mr.K.K.Udhayakumar, learned Government Advocate (civil) appearing for the appellants would submit that the G.O. Ms. No.128, Finance (Ze-Bag) Department, dated February 21, 2006 fixes the staff strength ratio. As per the said Government Order, the writ petitioner's college can fill up the vacant Office Assistant posts only in the ratio of 12:1. To that effect, the Director of Collegiate Education issued Letter in Na. Ka. No.17958/G3/2018 dated April 26, 2018 as well. The writ petitioner's college without following the Government Order and the communication, sent proposal seeking approval inter-alia for appointment of 7 persons for the post of Office Assistants. As the writ petitioner's college has no right to appoint more than the staff strength ratio, the proposal appointing 7 Office Assistants cannot be considered in their favour. Though, the writ petitioner's college is a minority educational institution protected under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the Government which disburses aid to the minority educational institution has every right to fix the staff strength ratio. Moreover, in this case, the appointments were made between the years 2018 and 2024 but the proposal was sent only in the year 2024, that is to say with a delay of about six years, which is also a ground for rejection of the approval. The learned Single Judge failed to consider the above facts and erred in allowing the Writ Petition. Accordingly, he would pray to allow the Writ Appeal, set aside the Order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the Writ Petition. In support of his contention, he would rely upon the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in in (i) Government of Maharastra -vs- Deokar's Distillery reported in (2003) 5 SCC 669, (ii) State of Uttar Pradesh -vs- Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College reported in (2021) 15 SCC 600 as well as a Judgment of this Court dated July 24, 2023 made in S.R.Jasmine Levy -vs- State of Tamil Nadu in W.A. Nos.765, 771 and 775 of 2019.
8. In response, Ms.Amala, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent / writ petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner's college is a minority educational institution protected under Article 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. Further, the posts of 7 Office Assistants to which appointments were made by the writ petitioner's college are sanctioned posts governed by Rule 11 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulations Rules, 1976. Once a post is sanctioned, it cannot be withdrawn by way of a general Government Order or communication, it can be done only under the Rule. As G.O. Ms. No.128, Finance (Ze-Bag) Department, dated February 21, 2006 was not issued under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulations Rules, 1976, it cannot stifle the management's power to fill up sanctioned posts under Rule 11 (3) thereof, especially when the writ petitioner's college is a minority educational institution. As regards the delay in proposal, she would submit that the same was caused due to the delay on the part of the third appellant in approving the appointment of the previous incumbents in whose vacancy the present incumbents were appointed. In support of her contention, she would rely upon the Judgement of this Court in (i) The Secretary, Ministry of School Education -vs- G.Suganthy in W.A. No.3533 of 2019 dated October 03, 2019; (ii) The State of Tamil Nadu - vs- D.Babusamy Kamalakaran in W.A. (MD) No.121 of 2015 dated June 09, 2016; and (iii) The State of Tamil Nadu -vs- The Secretary, Nirmala College for Women, in W.A. Nos.2096 and 2124 of 2019 dated July 19, 2019.
9. Heard on either side. Perused the materials available on record.
10. A bare reading of G.O. Ms. No.128, Finance (Ze-Bag) Department, dated February 21, 2006 would show that, it was issued fixing employment of Office Assistants in all Government Offices including Local Bodies and Undertakings. It could be seen that the said Government Order is a general one applicable to all the Government institutions and it was not specifically intended for any minority educational institution nor was it marked to the writ petitioner's college. Article 30 of the Constitution of India, gives powers to minority to not only set up but also administer minority institutions. Moreover, Rule 11 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulations Rules, 1976 enables the management of a private educational institution to appoint qualified candidates to fill up the posts sanctioned under Rule 11 (1) thereof by the Director of Collegiate Education. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos.2096 and 2124 of 2019 [cited supra], wherein it was held thus:
"5. The Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.219, Higher Education, dated 24.10.2013 directing the Management for outsourcing the vacancies in Group D categories like Sweeper, Scavenger, Cleaner and Gardner. The proposals submitted by the Management was rejected only on the basis of the order in G.O.Ms.No.219 dated 24.10.2013.
6. Rule 11 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976, contain a legislative mandate to fix the staff strength every year. Rule 11 (3) provides that in case of regular vacancy, it is open to the Management to fill up the post on regular basis, the only requirement being that the candidate should be qualified.
7. There is no dispute that the Management was entitled to make appointments taking into account four vacancies in the post of Nonteaching staff. The denial of approval was only on account of the order in G.O.Ms.No.219 dated 24.10.2013. There is no question of issuing a Government Order for outsourcing, even in respect of the sanctioned post. When it is made out that the post is sanctioned, the Management is having every right to fill up the post. The Government has no right to say that the post should be filled up only by outsourcing.
8. The posts were sanctioned only in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act, 1976 and the Rules made thereunder. The staff strength fixed as per the Rules cannot be taken away by issuing a Government Order directing or permitting outsourcing. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the Writ Petition.
9. The intra court appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."
11. Following W.A. Nos.2096 and 2124 of 2019, another Coordinate Bench of this Court in The State -vs- Women's Christian College, Nagercoi in W.A. (MD) Nos.532 to 534 of 2020 dated August 06, 2020, held as follows:
"8. The respondents are Religious minority institutions and it is well settled position of law that in respect of sanctioned non-teaching Posts, they are entitled to fill up the said Posts of their own choice and of course, subject to fulfilment of necessary criteria prescribed by the Government."
11.1. It was held that minority educational institution have their right to employ persons of their in sanctioned non-teaching posts in so long as the prescribed qualifications are met by that person.
12. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that G.O. Ms. No.128, Finance (Ze-Bag) Department, dated February 21, 2006 would not be applicable to any minority educational institution aided by the Government.
13. Coming to the alleged delay in sending the proposal, the writ petitioner has stated that the delay was solely attributable to the third appellant who delayed in granting approval for appointments of the previous incumbents in whose vacancy the present incumbents / 7 Office Assistants were appointed. This Court is of the view that, the reason is plausible. Moreover, the non-teaching posts being sanctioned posts, as long as there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appointments were actually made, mere delay cannot be put against the writ petitioner's college to deny grant-in-aid towards salary and allowances of the appointed staffs. If at all there is something fishy or there is any mala fide intent with the delay, the same has to be explained and supported by materials by the appellants.
14. Deokar's Distillery Case [cited supra] relied upon by the learned Government Advocate arises out of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and is not applicable to the factual matrix of the present case.
15. In Abhay Nandan Inter College Case [cited supra] relied upon by the learned Government Advocate, it was held inter-alia that the Government could impose conditions for grant-in-aid and could also make a policy decision to outsource certain category of staffs in Government aided educational institutions. No doubt that conditions could be imposed and policy decisions could be taken by the Government granting grant-in-aid, but in so far as minority educational institutions are concerned, the same has to be done by competent authority under a statute or rule. In the present case, the competent authority would be the Director of Collegiate Education and the relevant rule would be Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulations Rules, 1976. Neither a general Government Order like the G.O. Ms. No. 128, Finance (Ze-Bag) Department, dated February 21, 2006, nor the communication issued by the Director of Collegiate Education in Na. Ka. No.17958/g3/2018 dated April 26, 2018 which was not marked to the writ petitioner's college, can be cited to curtail the minority rights of an educational institution enshrined under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Hence, Abhay Nandan Inter College Case is not applicable to the present case.
16. As regards Jasmine Levy's Case [cited supra] relied upon by the learned Government Advocate, in that case, proposal was sent after an unreasonable and unexplained delay of more than 8 years for appointment to non-sanctioned posts. In the facts and circumstances of that case, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court ruled that the management shall bear the expenses for their salaries and allowances for the delay period. The said decision having been rendered considering the unique facts of that case, cannot be a binding precedent to the present case.
17. In view of the foregoing narrative, this Court does not find any need to interfere with the Order of learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge is justifiable in ordering the Writ Petition in favour of the writ petitioner and quashing the fourth appellant's proceedings dated May 07, 2025 in O.Mu.No.3682/e2/2025. Therefore, the Writ Appeal must fail as devoid of merits.
18. Resultantly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. Eight (8) weeks' time is granted from today to comply with the Order of the learned Single Judge dated October 24, 2025 passed in the Writ Petition. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.