BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P(MD)No. 6853 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.22165 & 22166 of 2023, 6600 to 6602 & 13001 of 2018 N. Muneeswaran ... Petitioner Vs 1. The State represented by its Secretary, Collegiate Educational Department, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai - 9 2. The Director, Collegiate Educational Department, EVK Sampath Building, DPI Compound, Chennai - 6 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3. The Regional Joint Director, Collegiate Education Department, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 4. The Secretary, Aditanar College of Arts and Science, Veerapandipatinam, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin District. 5. The Assistant Director, Professional and Executive Employment Office, Madurai, Madurai District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in connection with the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent vide in No. Uni/4-Ms-Est-1/29/2014-2015 dated 14.05.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pass the proper order to issue the suitable permanent appointment order of Assistant Professor in Chemistry Department in the 4th respondents college with all monetary benefits to the petitioner herein. 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Petitioner : M/s.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondents : Mr.G.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader, for R-1 to R-3 & R-5 MR.D.Srinivasa Raghavan, for R-4 ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent dated 14.05.2014 and consequently direct the respondents to pass the proper order to issue the suitable permanent appointment order of Assistant Professor in Chemistry Department in the 4th respondent’s college with all monetary benefits to the petition- er herein. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 01.03.2010 as Assistant Professor in the Chemistry Department and worked for sev- eral months, but the official respondents refused to grant approval through the im- pugned order. The reason for refusal is that the college instead of following the 200- 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis point roster had followed the 100-point roster. The contention of the petitioner is that it was not his mistake, but it is mistake on the part of the college for that the petition- er cannot be denied approval. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official re- spondents submitted that the vacancy arose on 24.12.2007, based on the resignation of one Mr. Ashok Kumar, who was appointed on 24.09.2007. As per G.O.Ms.No.241 dated 29.10.2007, for any vacancy arising after 15.09.2007, the 200-point roster should be applied. The petitioner relied on G.O.Ms.No.206, which states that the ear- lier G.O. has to be followed. However, the said G.O. was issued only to remove the Backward Class (BC) category from consideration. Therefore, the direction to follow the earlier G.O. refers to the application of the 200-point roster, and not the 100-point roster. 4. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered opin- ion that the respondents have rightly rejected the approval, as the college failed to 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis follow the 200-point roster. It is submitted that the post was reserved for the Sched- uled Caste (SC) category based on the approval granted by the Regional Director of Collegiate Education and the letter dated 20.01.2009 is extracted hereunder: “ ghh;itapy; fhZk; jq;fs; fbjj;jpy; gzpJwg;G nra;Js;s Ntjpapay; tphpTiuahsh; jpU.Mh;.mNrhf;Fkhh; vd;ghh; rhh;ghd fhypg;gzpaplj;ij g+h;j;jp nra;a ,dr;Row;rp Kiw rhh;ghf njspTiu Nfhug;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;fhz; njspTiu rhh;ghf jq;fs; fy;Y}hpapy; 100 vz;zk; nfhz;l ,dr;Row;rp Kiwapy; nra;ag;gl;l epakdq;fSf;F mLj;jjhf cs;s ,dr;Row;rp Kiwia njhlh;e;J gpd;gw;WkhsW njhptpf;fyhfpwJ. ” Therefore, the college ought to appoint only candidates from SC / ST commu- nity and not from other categories. 5. At this juncture the petitioner submitted he had worked for more than 50 months without salary. This Court is of the considered opinion since the petitioner had worked and has discharged his duties during this period, he is entitled to receive salary for the period he worked. The Learned Special Government Pleader submitted 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis that the college may be directed to pay the salary. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner’s appointment may be considered as “leave vacancy ap- pointment” or temporary appointment, in such circumstances the salary may be paid by the government itself as grant-in-aid. 6. For the reasons stated above this Court upholds the rejection order, consequently the petitioner is not entitled to approval. However, the petitioner is enti- tled to salary from the date of his appointment until the date of rejection. The salary for this period shall be paid by the government’s grant-in-aid 7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. NCC : Yes / No 16.04.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis KSA To 1. The State represented by its Secretary, Collegiate Educational Department, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai - 9 2. The Director, Collegiate Educational Department, EVK Sampath Building, DPI Compound, Chennai - 6 3. The Regional Joint Director, Collegiate Education Department, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 4. The Secretary, Aditanar College of Arts and Science, Veerapandipatinam, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin District. 5. The Assistant Director, Professional and Executive Employment Office, Madurai, 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Madurai District. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.SRIMATHY, J. KSA ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No. 6853 of 2018 DATED : 16.04.2025 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis