(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, seeking direction to the respondent to circulate the list of eligible candidates to the petitioner to fill up Group-D non-teaching posts for Waterman-2, Gardener-2, Sweeper-5, Scavenger-2, Waterman-2 and Grounds man/Marker -4.)

1.The present writ petition has been filed by an Aided Non-minority Institution seeking a mandamus directing the respondent to circulate the list of eligible candidates to the petitioner college to fill up Group-D nonteaching posts.

(A)Factual Matrix:

2.According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the College was started in the year 1963 and they are having the sanctioned post of 18 Group-D non-teaching posts under aided category. Out of 18 sanctioned posts, 17 of them have fallen vacant due to the retirement, death and promotion between the year 2000 and 2021.

3.The petitioner institution has submitted a proposal to the educational authority on 22.01.2025 and a reminder dated 04.03.2025 seeking their approval to fill up 17 sanctioned Group-D vacancies. Since the request was not considered, the petitioner institution had filed W.P.No.9798 of 2025. The said writ petition was disposed of on 09.04.2025 wherein it was observed that the management has got every right to fill up the said post in accordance with the procedure followed by the petitioner college.

4.The petitioner management has addressed a communication to the respondent herein on 14.05.2025 requesting them to sponsor candidates to fill up the vacancies. Certain clarifications were sought for by the respondent which were explained on 17.06.2025 by the petitioner management. On 07.07.2025, a communication has been addressed by the respondent to the petitioner management to the effect that they have to enclose a copy of the prior permission order of the Director of Collegiate Education to fill up the posts.

5.In the light of the above said facts, the present writ petition has been filed.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side are as follows:

6.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had relied upon a Division Bench judgment of our High Court reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 641 (P.Ravichandran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Chennai and others) had contended that the prior permission is not required by the management of the private aided Colleges to fill up vacancies of teaching and non-teaching staff arising out of sanctioned post and in the absence of any prohibitory order issued by the Government. He had further submitted that G.O.(Ms).No.66, Higher Education (D2) Department dated 03.04.2025 would not be applicable to the cased where the vacancies arisen prior to the date of the said Government order. Therefore, the management cannot be compelled to appoint the non-teaching staff through out-sourcing. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition.

7.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent had submitted that the petitioner Institution is an non-minority institution. Though posts may be sanctioned post, for filling up the same, prior permission of the educational authority is required. The Government has issued G.O.(Ms).No.66, Higher Education (D2) Department dated 03.04.2025 wherein the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulations) Act 1976 has been amended to the effect that other than office assistant, the posts have to be filled up only through out-sourcing. The said amendment is applicable to the petitioner College also. Therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner management cannot approach the respondent Employment Exchange requesting them to sponsor the names for appointment on a regular basis. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

8.I have considered the submissions made on either side and peursed the material records.

(C).Discussion:

9.The issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner management would be entitled to fill up the post on a regular basis or they have to appoint the employees falling under Group-D services only through out-sourcing.

10.As per averment in the affidavit, 17 vacancies in the sanctioned post have arisen between 2000-2021. It is not the case of the respondent that the vacancies has arisen after G.O.(Ms).No.66 dated 03.04.2025. The Hon'ble Division Bench of our High Court in a judgment in WA.No.3429 of 2025 (The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai and others Vs. National College, Rep.by its Secretary) dated 17.09.2025 wherein a similar issue arose was pleased to hold as follows. Paragraph No.6 is extracted as follows:

                   “6.Admittedly, the vacancies in 48 Group-D posts arose in 2022, and the respondent/writ petitioner submitted a representation on 27.07.2022 seeking approval to fill up those vacancies. As on the date when the vacancies arose and the representation was made, there was no prohibition on filling up Group-D category posts. The request for approval was rejected on 26.07.2023. The amendment to Rule 11 of the Rules, 1976, came into effect only on 03.04.2025 and does not contain any provision conferring retrospective operation. Therefore, the amended Rule cannot be invoked to retrospectively curtail the respondent/writ petitioner’s vested right to fill up the vacancies in accordance with the rules then in force. Consequently, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the impugned order is contrary to amended Rule 11 is without merit.”

11.In view of the above said judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench, order of the Government to the private aided colleges to fill up Group-D (other than office assistant) through out-sourcing would be applicable only in cases where the vacancies arose prior to 03.04.2025. In the present case, as per contention in the writ affidavit, the vacancies arise either in the year 2021 or before that.

12.In such circumstances, in view of the Division Bench judgment of our High Court, the petitioner management would be entitled to fill up the sanctioned post, provided vacancies have arisen prior to 03.04.2025.

13.In view of the above said deliberations, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the respondent to circulate the list of eligible candidates to the petitioner management, if the petitioner management produces records to show that the vacancies have arisen prior to 03.04.2025.

(D).Conclusion:

14.In the result, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent as stated above. No costs.