State of Tamil Nadu's Refusal to Approve Appointments of Assistant Professors and Librarian at St. Joseph's College Quashed; Court Emphasizes Protection Under Article 30 of the Constitution
In a significant ruling delivered on August 28, 2026, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, dismissed the writ appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against St. Joseph's College (Autonomous), affirming that minority aided colleges have the constitutional right to fill sanctioned vacant posts without seeking prior permission from the State authorities. The judgment reiterates the principles laid down in the 2013 judgment of P. Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, clarifying the scope of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 in the context of minority educational institutions.
The case arose when St. Joseph's College appointed seven Assistant Professors and one Librarian to posts that were already sanctioned by the Director of Collegiate Education. The State authorities refused to approve these appointments and consequently withheld grant-in-aid payments on several grounds, including the alleged non-submission of details about the sanctioned posts, lack of records concerning previous incumbents, absence of financial sanction, failure to submit Form VII-A, and non-disclosure of interview marks.
The college challenged this refusal before the Madras High Court, which was initially decided by a Single Judge directing the State to approve the appointments and release the grant-in-aid. The State contested this order through a writ appeal.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Sakthivel, examined the grounds raised by the State and referred to the authoritative precedent in P. Ravichandran (2013), which held unequivocally that prior permission is not a statutory requirement for filling vacant posts that have already been sanctioned. The Court emphasized that denial of approval and grant-in-aid on the basis of procedural formalities like the submission of Form VII-A or interview marks, especially when the selection process was transparent and unchallenged, is untenable.
Furthermore, the Court underscored the constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguards the rights of minority educational institutions to administer their affairs without unwarranted interference. Appointment of teaching staff was recognized as an essential part of such administration. Since the posts were sanctioned and the appointments were made following a transparent process, the refusal to approve the appointments was held to be illegal.
The Court ordered the State authorities to comply with the directions of the Single Judge within twelve weeks, approving the appointments and disbursing the grant-in-aid for salaries and allowances accordingly.
This judgment is a landmark affirmation of the autonomy of minority aided colleges in Tamil Nadu, providing clarity on the regulatory framework governing appointments in private colleges and reinforcing constitutional safeguards for minority educational institutions.
Bottom Line:
Minority aided college - No prior permission is required to fill sanctioned vacant posts under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and Rules - Once posts are already sanctioned, the State cannot refuse approval of appointments and grant-in-aid on untenable grounds, particularly when the institution is a minority institution protected under Article 30 and the selection process is not under challenge.
Statutory provision(s):
Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976, Article 30, Constitution of India
