Minority Aided Institutions Can Appoint Teachers To Sanctioned Vacant Posts Without Prior Permission : Madras High Court
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C. V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel held that minority institutions under Article 30 have the right to fill already-sanctioned vacant teaching posts without prior approval, subject to qualifications and procedural rules, and approval for grant-in-aid cannot be denied arbitrarily.
Background Facts
The respondent is the Secretary of St. Joseph's College (Autonomous), Tiruchirapalli, which is a minority institution. The college appointed 7 Assistant Professors and 1 Librarian in sanctioned posts. The Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, issued proceedings dated 20.12.2024 rejecting approval for the appointments.
Aggrieved, the Secretary filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court to quash the proceedings issued by the Director and to disburse the grant-in-aid towards their salary and allowances from the respective dates of their appointment.
It was observed by the Single Judge that as per Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976, these posts were not filled after obtaining the financial sanction. Aggrieved by the same, the State of Tamil Nadu filed the writ appeal before the Division Bench.
It was contended by the State that the total number of posts sanctioned in the year 1999-2000 as per the available workload were not disclosed. It was further contended that with respect to the appointment of the 7 Assistant Professors and 1 Librarian in the College, the details as to the appointment of previous incumbents and their approval from the Director of Collegiate Education were not enclosed.
It was argued by the State that as stated in Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976, the posts were not filled after obtaining the financial sanction. It was further submitted that as the marks obtained by the candidates who took part in the interview was not enclosed, therefore, it could not be ascertained whether the appointments were made by considering the eligibility.
On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent that the selection process was not challenged, therefore, the denial of approval was arbitrary.
Findings and Observations of the Court
It was observed by the Division Bench that the State did not allege that there were surplus teachers therefore, fresh appointments should not be made. It was observed that Form VIIA does not apply to minority institutions.
The case of P.Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others was relied upon wherein it was held that there is no requirement under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976, to seek prior permission to fill up any vacant post in an aided college, which has already been sanctioned for the academic year by the Director of Collegiate Education.
It was further held that if the appointment made by the College Committee in the sanctioned vacant post is in violation of any of the statutory provision, it is open to the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education to deny grant-in-aid to the said person appointed in the vacant post.
It was held that the teaching staff appointed must be fully qualified, whose qualification is approved by the University to which the college is affiliated. Insofar as the non-teaching staff are concerned, the candidate must possess the qualification prescribed by the Government.
It was further observed by the Division Bench that once the posts had been sanctioned, then Article 30 of the Constitution of India protects the minority institutions from any interference with the administration. They have a right to administer the institution. One aspect of the administration is to appoint the teachers.
Therefore, it was held by the Division Bench that the respondents have filled in the posts for which sanction had already been granted. Further, the selection process also was not questioned or challenged. Therefore, the opinion of the Single Judge that the selection process was transparent was upheld by the Division Bench.
With the aforesaid observations, the judgment of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Accordingly, the writ appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench. Further, the State was directed to comply with the order of the Single Judge within twelve weeks.
Case Name : State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. The Secretary, St. Josephs College (Autonomous)
Case No. : W.A(MD)No.1355 of 2026
Counsel for the Appellant : K.K.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
Counsel for the Respondent : K.Ragatheesh Kumar for M/.Isaac Chambers