S.R.Jasmine Levy v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2024:MHC:5967

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 24.07.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU W.A.Nos.765, 771 and 775 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.6051, 6080 and 6095 of 2019, 20787 and 20787 of 2021 W.P.No.765 of 2019 S.R.Jasmine Levy ... Appellant Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education, Fort St. Goerge, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli - 627 007.

4.The Scott Christian College, Rep. by its Correspondent-cum-Secretary, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District - 629 003.

Page No.1/32

5.P.Anto Paulin Brinto ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act to set aside the order dated 18.12.2018 passed in W.P.No.35699 of 2015 and allow the writ appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.G.Sankaran Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Bharathirajan For R5 : Mr.Thankasivan for Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan W.P.No.771 of 2019 S.R.Jasmine Levy ... Appellant Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education, Fort St. Goerge, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

Page No.2/32

3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli - 627 007.

4.The Scott Christian College, Rep. by its Correspondent-cum-Secretary, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District - 629 003.

5.Manomaniam Sundaranar University, Rep. by its Registrar, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli - 627 012.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act to set aside the order dated 18.12.2018 passed in W.P.No.19111 of 2014 and allow the writ appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.G.Sankaran Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Bharathirajan For R5 : Mr.Nambi Arroran for M/s.Ajmal Associates W.P.No.775 of 2019 S.R.Jasmine Levy ... Appellant Vs Page No.3/32

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education, Fort St. Goerge, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli - 627 007.

4.The Scott Christian College, Rep. by its Correspondent-cum-Secretary, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District - 629 003.

5.Manomaniam Sundaranar University, Rep. by its Registrar, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli - 627 012.

6.P.Anto Paulin Brinto ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act to set aside the order dated 18.12.2018 passed in W.P.No.1511 of 2015 and allow the writ appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar Special Government Pleader Page No.4/32

For R4 : Mr.G.Sankaran Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Bharathirajan For R5 : Mr.Nambi Arroran for M/s.Ajmal Associates For R6 : Mr.Thankasivan for Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR.,J.) These three appeals since arise out of a common order passed by the Writ Court dated 18.12.2018, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, all these three appeals were taken together and decided by this common judgment.

2.The fourth respondent in all the appeals is a Private College with aid from the State Government run by a minority Private Management [hereinafter be called as "the College"]. The appellant in all these appeals is an Hindi Lecturer as she is qualified to hold the post of Lecturer in Hindi she was appointed as Hindi Lecturer by the College on 20.06.2001 Page No.5/32

[hereinafter be called as "Hindi Lecturer"]. The 5th respondent in the appeal is a Maths Lecturer and he was appointed as Maths Lecturer in the fourth respondent College by appointment order dated 13.06.2007 [hereinafter be called as "Maths Lecturer"].

3.Now the lis is revolving between these two appointments. When the Hindi Lecturer is appointed in 2001, the said post of Hindi Lecturer in College was available as it was a sanctioned post where the staff strength also for the College was fixed by the order of the official respondents dated 12.10.1999.

4.Though such an appointment was made on 20.06.2001 appointing the Hindi Lecturer who is the appellant in all these appeals, there was no proposal sent by the College Management to the official respondents who are the authorities to approve such appointment, till 2009. 5.In the meanwhile, it was felt the need of having one more Lecturer in Maths subject due to increase of students strength, hence the College Page No.6/32

Management decided to appoint the Maths Lecturer by appointment order dated 13.06.2007 knowing well that there was no sanctioned post of Maths Lecturer in the College. Therefore, at the time of such appointment dated 13.06.2007, it was made clear by the College Management that the present appointment made would be subject to the sanction and approval to be made by the authorities and if at all any salary to be claimed on par with the Government salary fixation, that can be claimed only after sanctioning of the post and approval of the appointment given to the Maths Lecturer concerned.

6.Therefore in a sanctioned vacancy of Hindi Lecturer, the appellant was appointed on 20.06.2001 and she has been continuously working and on 13.06.2007, the Maths Lecturer was appointed and he was also continuously working.

7.Only in the year 2009, a communication has been sent by the College Management to the official respondents intimating that several incumbents who have been working in various subjects in the sanctioned Page No.7/32

posts retired on superannuation and in this regard the vacancy caused by them since have been filled up, those who are working in such vacancies which are sanctioned vacancies have to be approved. 8.Only the said general communication had been sent by the College Management but no specific request had been made by the College Management seeking approval of the appointment of the Hindi Lecturer with effect from 20.06.2001 even though she was appointed on that date in the sanctioned vacancy.

9.While that being so, by taking into account of the students strength the request of the College Management having been considered one additional post of Maths Lecturer has been sanctioned and in lieu of that, the Hindi Lecturer post already sanctioned to the College has been taken back. Such a sanction of additional Maths Lecturer post was made to the College by the authorities by their order dated 30.04.2014. 10.Till such time the issue has not come before the Court of law as Page No.8/32

the Hindi Lecturer was continuously working, getting the salary from the Management, the Maths Lecturer has also been continuously working since his appointment in the year 2007 and getting the salary paid by the Management. Only after the conversion has been made by sanctioning one additional Maths Lecturer post with effect from 30.04.2014, it has come to light that the Hindi Lecturer post has been surrendered or in lieu of that post only the Maths Lecturer additional post has been sanctioned where the Maths Lecturer has been appointed on 13.06.2007. Therefore, there would be no room for the Hindi Lecturer to continue as a Lecturer [Hindi] in the sanctioned post and hence, getting annoyed over the said conversion, the Hindi Lecturer questioned the conversion order dated 30.04.2014 in the writ petition in W.P.No.1511 of 2015.

11.It it to be noted that, before such conversion or before such order was passed, the Hindi Lecturer also filed yet another writ petition i.e. W.P.No.19111 of 2014 where she sought for a writ of Mandamus to the official respondents to approve her appointment as Hindi Lecturer with effect from 20.06.2001.

Page No.9/32

12.In the said writ petitions, since an order of Status quo has been granted by the Writ Court, in order to comply with the said order of Status quo as the Hindi Lecturer in the meanwhile filed a contempt petition also, the officials respondents decided to pass an order cancelling the approval of appointment given to the Maths Lecturer and a proceeding to that effect was issued on 30.09.2015. Challenging the said proceedings dated 30.09.2015, the Maths Lecturer filed W.P.No.25699 of 2015. 13.All these three writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by a common order of the Writ Court dated 18.12.

2018, where the learned Judge having taken note of the reduction of the students strength in Hindi subject which went under ten students per year, found that there was a justification on the part of the College Management to seek for conversion of the post by getting one more Maths Lecturer post and that post, since has been sanctioned with effect from 30.04.2014, the person who was appointed as Maths Lecturer would be entitled to continue in the post and insofar as the appellant i.e., Hindi Lecturer is concerned since the post has been Page No.

withdrawn or surrendered in lieu of the sanction of the Maths Lecturer post, would not be entitled to continue to hold the post, however, since she has been all along working and going to retire by superannuation within a shortest period till such time, since the Management has given an undertaking that the Hindi Lecturer would be taken care of by paying the salary, the learned Judge having recorded the same disposed of the writ petitions in the aforestated line. Aggrieved over the said order passed by the learned Judge by order dated 18.12.2018, only the Hindi Lecturer has come up with these appeals filing against the respective writ petitions, that is how these appeals have come up before this Court. 14.We have heard Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.G.Sankaran, learned senior counsel appearing for the College, Mr.Thankasivan, learned counsel appearing for the Maths Lecturer, Mr.Nambi Arroran, learned counsel appearing for the University and Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State.

Page No.11/32

15.It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant i.e., Hindi Lecturer that, she was qualified to hold the post of Hindi Lecturer even on 20.06.2001 and this become evident as the concerned University has approved the qualification of the Hindi Lecturer with effect from the said date, namely, 20.06.2001. Therefore on the date of appointment i.e., 20.06.2001 the Hindi Lecturer was having the qualification and the Hindi Lecturer post was one of the sanctioned post as per the staff strength fixed by the authorities by communication dated 12.10.1999 and since such appointment, the Hindi Lecturer has been continuously working till her superannuation i.e., 31.05.

2023, the appellant Hindi Lecturer is entitled get approval of such appointment and as a sequel, she is also entitled to get the salary difference as well as arrears of salary on par with the Government salary for all these years she had been working and also she would be entitled to get the pension. 16.However, the learned counsel appearing for the Maths Lecturer would contend that, insofar as the necessity to sanction one more Maths Page No.

Lecturer post is concerned, that necessity has come to the College with effect from 1991 and this has become evident by way of communication issued by the Director of Collegiate Education to state that based on the students strength one more Maths Lecturer post has to be sanctioned to the College.

17.Though such a necessity arose long years back the sanction was given only on 30.04.2014 whereas the Maths Lecturer on need basis was selected and appointed by the College Management with effect from 2007 i.e., 13.06.2007 itself and since then, she he has been working. However, till 30.04.2014, the date on which the post has been sanctioned, the Maths Lecturer was receiving only the salary paid by the Management, however, since 30.04.2014 he is entitled to get the salary on par with the Government teachers and therefore for the period from 30.04.2014, as his appointment has been approved, he is entitled to continue in the said post of Maths Lecturer and also would be entitled to get government salary. Page No.13/32

18.In this context, the learned counsel for the Maths Lecturer would further submit that, the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the official respondents because of the Status quo order passed in the writ petitions filed by the appellant Hindi Lecturer is only a face saving measure by the authorities concerned and not based on any reasoning and therefore, the learned Judge has taken a right decision to set aside the said order, by thus, the Maths Lecturer is eligible and entitled to claim the salary atleast from 30.04.2014. Therefore, to that extent, the order passed by the learned Judge is in conformity with the rule position as well as the orders passed by the authorities concerned.

Hence, insofar as the impugned judgment is concerned since it does not violate any of the rules or procedure and only after sanctioning order was passed with effect from 30.04.2014 since this Maths Lecturer claiming the salary, in this regard certainly the appellant would not have any grievance nor the College or the Government. Therefore, to that extent the order passed by the learned Judge is to be sustained, he contended.

19.On the other hand, Mr.G.Sankaran, learned senior counsel Page No.14/32

appearing for the College would contend that, though there was a sanctioned post of Hindi Lecturer even in the year 2001 where the appellant Hindi Lecturer was appointed with effect from 20.06.

2001, the College Management could not send the proposal of approval of such appointment, the reason being that since there has been a ban of appointment for the reason that there has been a steady declining of enrolment of students in language subjects, especially in Hindi language, as the enrolment has been drastically reduced even less than ten, therefore, as per the norms of the Department there could not be any separate teacher for Hindi in the sanctioned post whereas depending upon the enrolment of students in Maths subjects it become necessity to enhance the staff strength of Maths Lecturer to one more such Lecturer which was evidenced from the statistics given by the very Director of Collegiate Education and therefore, the sanction has been made as per the request of the College Management to convert the post of Hindi Lecturer into Maths Lecturer which was requested by the College Management sometime in 2007 and it was considered and belatedly approved by the authorities only in the year 2014.

Page No.

20.Because of these reasons, according to the learned senior counsel, appointment made to the post of Hindi Lecturer in the year 2001 has not been intimated and no such proposal has been sent to the authorities for giving approval of such appointment.

21.However, the learned senior counsel would further submit that, the Hindi Lecturer has been continuously paid the salary by the Management till her superannuation, therefore insofar as the welfare of the Hindi Lecturer is concerned that has been well taken and protected by the College Management. Hence, such arrangement having been taken into account, it was approved by the learned Judge through the impugned order which cannot be found fault with and therefore, insofar as the said order which is impugned herein is concerned, it is not the grievance of anyone and therefore, the order is to be sustained.

22.On the other hand, Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that, the appointment made by the College in respect of the appellant Hindi Lecturer Page No.16/32

in the year 2001 has never been brought to the notice of the authorities till 2014 when the Hindi Lecturer filed a writ petition seeking for a Mandamus to approve such appointment. Till such time, since nothing has come from the College Management, the question of giving any approval of appointment of Hindi Lecturer from 2001 does not arise. 23.Moreover, the proposal had come from the College to convert the Hindi Lecturer post into Maths Lecturer post by giving one more Maths Lecturer post in the year 2007, that has been under the consideration of the Government and ultimately in 2014 such conversion has been permitted and the post has been sanctioned, since then even though the other person who was appointed as Maths Lecturer in the year 2007, he would be entitled to get such salary only from 30.04.2014, not prior to that and from 30.04.

2014 the Lecturer since is entitled to get the salary which was stopped by order dated 30.09.2015 by the Department because of the order of the Court by way of Status quo and subsequently since that order has been set aside by the impugned judgment of the Writ Court, the Department is ready and willing to execute that order. However, when these writ appeals were filed Page No.

the Status quo granted already and was enjoyed by the appellant before the Writ Court has been continued by the orders of the Division Bench dated 08.04.2019.

24.In view of the Status quo order that has been continued by the orders of the Division Bench, till date the salary has not been paid but subject to the orders to be passed in these appeals, the official respondents would abide by whatever decision to be made by this Court in respect of payment of salary to the Maths Lecturer who was appointed and whose appointment was approved since 30.04.2014, he contended. 25.We have considered all these detailed submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

26.It is not in dispute that the College is an aided minority institution. At regular intervals, the teaching faculty strength is fixed by the competent authority and last of such fixation was made on 12.10.1999. According to Page No.18/32

such fixation, there was an Hindi Lecturer post sanctioned. In that sanctioned post, on 20.06.2001 the appellant Hindi Lecturer was appointed. With regard to the qualification to hold the post, absolutely there has been no quarrel and it has been approved by the concerned University also with regard to the qualification of the appellant/Hindi Lecturer. 27.Therefore, the appointment that has been made in respect of the appellant/Hindi Lecturer in the year 2001 is a regular appointment made in a sanctioned post. Hence, since then the Hindi Lecturer has been continuously working her appointment should have been approved by the authorities.

28.However, it has been submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State that, till 2014 when the appellant filed a writ petition for the first time, her appointment as Hindi Lecturer in the year 2001 has not been brought to the notice of the authorities by the College Management.

Page No.19/32

29.When this delay was specifically questioned by this Court, the learned senior counsel appearing for the College Management would contend that, because of the ban order as well as reduction in the enrolment in Hindi subject at the College, such a decision could not be taken. Therefore, only in the year 2009 the said communication had been sent for giving approval for those who had been appointed in the vacancy caused by various teachers who retired including the one teacher who retired in Hindi Lecturer post but there was no specific request made for the approval of appointment of Hindi Lecturer.

30.However, the fact remains that there has been no such ban order issued by the Government or the authorities not to make any appointment in the sanctioned vacancy.

31.Since the 4th respondent is a minority institution, there was no necessity to seek for any prior approval from the authorities. Therefore, on their own based on the interse merit among the applicants, selection can be Page No.20/32

made and appointment can be given in any sanctioned vacancy, that is how the Hindi Lecturer was appointed in the year 2001. 32.Insofar as her qualification to hold the post, there has been no dispute.

33.When that being so, for nearly about seven to nine years the College Management did not come forward to make a request to approve the appointment of the Hindi Lecturer, for which there is no plausible reason on the part of the College Management. 34.However, in the meanwhile in 2007 the College Management though sought for conversion of the post from Hindi Lecturer to Maths Lecturer that was kept pending and decided ultimately by the authorities only in the year 2014 and such conversion with sanction of Maths Lecturer post was given only with effect from 30.04.2014. 35.Only thereafter the appellant Hindi Lecturer, since had no other Page No.21/32

option except to challenge such conversion order dated 30.04.2014, had approached this Court and in the meanwhile, already the appellant Hindi Lecturer filed earlier writ petition in W.P.No.19111 of 2014 seeking for a writ of Mandamus to approve such approval.

36.When that being the position it cannot be stated that non-sending of a proposal to approve such appointment of the appellant Hindi Lecturer with effect from 20.06.2001 is because of reduction in enrolment or an alleged ban order or communication of the authorities. 37.The reason being that, it is true that the students strength has been considerably declined in Hindi subject and the statistics also disclose the students enrolment in Hindi subject was less than even five consecutively for several years. When that being the position, it is for the College Management to seek for the conversion of the post and that they have made the attempt only in the year 2007, but in 2001 itself appointment was made and for several years the appellant Hindi Lecturer had been continuously working in the College and the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Page No.22/32

has also on instructions would submit that, the appellant Hindi Lecturer was taking classes not only for the students enrolled in the aided stream but also in the Management stream students enrolled in Hindi subject, for whom also the Hindi Lecturer was directed to take classes and she has been continuously obliging the same.

38.When that being so, it become evident that the College Management was continuously extracting work from the appellant Hindi Lecturer and paid only a minimum salary or a consolidated salary from the Management and not paid the salary on par with the Government. 39.The non-payment of salary on par with the Government salary even though the Hindi Lecturer was appointed in the sanctioned post is a fault on the part of the Management.

40.Moreover, the non-approval of the appointment of the appellant Hindi Lecturer with effect from 20.06.2001 for the reason of non-sending the proposal for several years cannot be attributed to anyone like either the Page No.23/32

appellant or the Government or the authorities but it is attributable only on the College Management. For what reason the College Management has delayed sending the proposal is still not known. 41.Insofar as the Maths Lecturer is concerned, her appointment though has been taken place on 13.06.2007, admittedly at that time there was no sanctioned post of Maths Lecturer and the post has come into effect only from 30.04.2014 and the learned counsel appearing for him would also contend before this Court that, the Maths Lecturer was ready and willing to receive the Government salary only with effect from 30.04.2014. Insofar as sanctioning of such salary to the Maths Lecturer from 30.04.2014, the Government also would have no hesitation as they are ready and willing to sanction the salary and only because of the interim order of status quo granted by the Writ Court as well as the Division Bench, the salary has not been sanctioned.

42.Though it was claimed by the College Management that the fifth respondent Maths Lecturer has received salary from the College Page No.24/32

Management from 2007 till 2014, this has been disputed by the learned counsel for the fifth respondent Maths Lecturer and on instruction, he would submit that from 2007 till 2014, the date on which the Government sanctioned and approved the post, the fifth respondent has not received a single rupee from the College Management. In order to record this factor, the statement made by the learned counsel is taken on record. 43.Having taken note of all these factors in order to resolve the controversy between these two lecturers i.e., appellant Hindi Lecturer and the fifth respondent Maths Lecturer and to render justice to both the persons as the Hindi Lecturer had been serving in the College from 2001 and the Maths Lecturer though has been serving from 2007, in the sanctioned post has been working from 2014, they are entitled to get the full salary on par with the Government teachers.

44.In this context, insofar as the appellant Hindi Lecturer is concerned, she was superannuated and retired from service on 31.05.2023. Page No.25/32

45.The learned Judge in the order impugned has recorded the undertaking given by the College Management that till the superannuation the Hindi Lecturer would be paid the salary.

46.However, it has been complained by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Hindi Lecturer that even from 2001-2003 to 2022-2023 i.e. till the date of superannuation, salary has not been paid on par with the Government fixation.

47.However, the said statement given by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Hindi Lecturer is disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the College.

48.Be that as it may, now what is entitled for the appellant Hindi Lecturer can be declared herein, based on which whatever the salary due payable to her shall be calculated and be paid by the College Management. Having taken note of all these factors by having gone through the judgment Page No.26/32

which is impugned herein, passed by the learned Judge, we are of the view that all these writ appeals can be disposed of with the following order:

1) That the appellant [Hindi Lecturer] since has been appointed on 20.06.2001 at the fourth respondent College in a sanctioned vacancy as Hindi Lecturer and she had been continuously working till her superannuation i.e., 31.05.2023, she is entitled to claim the salary for the whole period from the date of appointment till the date of superannuation on par with the Government teachers;

2) Based on the aforestated, the salary component shall be calculated and a request shall be made by the appellant Hindi Lecturer to the College Management within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the College Management who on receipt of such request from the appellant Hindi Lecturer shall calculate the said amount by verifying the payment already made by the College Management for the appellant Hindi Lecturer and by deducting the same, the remaining amount payable to the appellant Hindi Lecturer on par with the Government teacher shall be calculated and be paid to her by the College Management within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

3) That the appellant Hindi Lecturer has been appointed in a Page No.27/32

sanctioned vacancy on 20.06.2001, her appointment never been approved for which the reason may be fastened only on the College. The fact remains that the appellant has not been approved. Hence this Court is unable to give any direction to the official respondents to give such approval nor give any direction to the official respondents to sanction the salary from the exchequer including pension. Hence, the appellant Hindi Lecturer is not entitled to seek for any pension except the full salary on par with the Government teacher as indicated above.

4) Insofar as the fifth respondent Maths Lecturer is concerned, since her appointment has been approved with effect from 30.04.2014 and the subsequent cancellation order dated 30.09.2015 has also been set aside by the impugned order of the Writ Court, we affirm the said decision of the learned Judge. As a result, the fifth respondent Maths Lecturer would be entitled to receive the Government salary by way of aid from the Government through the fourth respondent College with effect from 30.04.2014 and she can continue to work in that capacity till her entitlement. The said salary arrears payable to the fifth respondent shall be claimed by the College Management by sending the proposals within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of Page No.28/32

such proposal, the concerned authority, namely, the Director of Collegiate Education or the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, as the case may be, shall sanction such salary component till date within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

5) It is also made clear that the approval of appointment has been made with effect from 13.06.2007 insofar as the fifth respondent Maths Lecturer is concerned, however, for the purpose of salary and monetary benefit, that has been taken effect from 29/30.04.2014.

6) The College Management since has not acted upon in time in ending the proposal for approval of the appointment of Hindi Lecturer with effect from 20.06.2001 in a sanctioned vacancy, all these confusions have arisen that lead to so many litigations and in the meanwhile, since the very appellant herself after rendering 22 years of service has superannuated, the College Management has to bear the burden of paying the salary on par with Government teacher to the appellant Hindi Lecturer and therefore, such a payment shall be made by the College Management as indicated above within the time stipulated herein. Page No.29/32

49.With these directions, the judgment given by the learned Judge is modified and affirmed to the extent as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.) 24.07.2023 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order cse Page No.30/32

To 1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education, Fort St. Goerge, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli - 627 007.

4.Manomaniam Sundaranar University, Rep. by its Registrar, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli - 627 012.

Page No.31/32

R.SURESH KUMAR., J.

and K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.

cse W.A.Nos.765, 771 and 775 of 2019 24.07.2023 Page No.32/32