Kiran Raj

The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the approval of a sanitary worker’s appointment in a minority educational institution. The court recorded that the government’s attempt to prevent private aided colleges from making regular appointments through administrative orders was legally unsustainable. The judgment stated, “Since we find that this appeal is re-agitation of a matter, which is already settled by a Division Bench of this Court and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we impose cost of Rs.5,00,000/- on the Government.”

The case was heard by Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan. The court directed the government to pay Rs. 2,50,000 to the appointed sanitary worker through the college and deposit the remaining Rs. 2,50,000 with the Madras High Court Legal Services Authority. The government was granted four weeks to comply with the order, with a compliance report due by March 20, 2025.

Also Read: FIR Instituted With Ulterior Motive Only Because Husband Preferred Divorce Petition: SC Quashes Criminal Case Against Man & His Family

The appeal was filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Department of Higher Education, the Director of Collegiate Education, and the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai Region. The case pertained to the appointment of a sanitary worker, T. Govindammal, at St. Christopher’s College of Education, a minority institution. The Tamil Nadu Directorate of Collegiate Education refused to approve the appointment, citing Government Order G.O.Ms.No.219, which required that Group-D posts in government-aided colleges be filled through contractual workers rather than permanent appointments.

The college challenged this decision before a single judge of the High Court, seeking a mandamus directing the approval of the appointment. The judge allowed the writ petition, relying on a Division Bench judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Secretary, Nirmala College for Women. The government then filed the present appeal against that decision.

The court noted that the validity of G.O.Ms.No.219 had already been adjudicated in multiple cases. The Division Bench, in Secretary, Nirmala College for Women v. State of Tamil Nadu, had ruled that private aided colleges had the right to make regular appointments to sanctioned posts. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, rendering the matter legally conclusive.

The government had previously challenged the issue in W.A.Nos.2096 & 2124 of 2019, and the Division Bench had upheld the quashing of G.O.Ms.No.219. Similarly, a Division Bench judgment in W.A.Nos.1704 to 1707 of 2018 was challenged in SLP (Civil) Nos. 6573 to 6577 of 2019, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on January 28, 2022.

The High Court observed, “Thus, quashment of G.O.Ms.No.219 by this Court has become final.”

The High Court examined the legal framework governing appointments in private aided institutions. It recorded that Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Rules, 1976, mandated the government to grant aid for appointments made by aided institutions. The judgment stated, “Rule 11(3) provides that in case of regular vacancy, it is open to the Management to fill up the post on regular basis, the only requirement being that the candidate should be qualified.”

The court noted that the government’s argument, that it could prevent private aided colleges from making regular appointments through administrative orders, was inconsistent with established legal principles. It recorded, “No doubt, the Government has got the power to regulate appointments in Government-aided Colleges, but that cannot be done by way of administrative orders which run contrary to the rules that are already in force.”

The government relied on a single-judge decision in M.V. Ekanathan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, where the court upheld the government's authority to regulate appointments in aided colleges. However, the High Court rejected this reliance, stating, “We are unable to sustain the view taken by the learned single Judge in M.V. Ekanathan v. Government of Tamil Nadu as the same runs counter to the Division Bench judgment of this Court, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”

The court also referenced the Division Bench judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Secretary, Nirmala College for Women, which had struck down G.O.Ms.No.219 on the grounds that it conflicted with existing statutory provisions governing aided colleges. The judgment recorded, “The proposals submitted by the Management were rejected only on the basis of the order in G.O.Ms.No.219 dated 24.10.2013.”

The High Court noted that multiple judgments had already settled the issue and that the present appeal was an attempt to reopen a legally concluded matter. The judgment stated, “This order has become final. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal.”

The High Court dismissed the government’s appeal and upheld the single-judge order directing the approval of the sanitary worker’s appointment. Additionally, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 on the government for pursuing litigation on an issue that had already been conclusively settled. The judgment recorded, “A cost of Rs.2,50,000/- is to be paid through the College to the person appointed as a Sanitary worker and the remaining sum of Rs.2,50,000/- shall be paid to the Madras High Court Legal Services Authority.”

Also Read: Compassionate Appointment Denied: Jharkhand High Court Cites ‘No Vested Right,’ ‘Decade-Long Delay,’ and ‘Non-Honourable Acquittal’ as Justifications

The government was granted four weeks to implement the order, with a compliance report to be submitted by March 20, 2025. The judgment stated, “Costs shall be paid within a period of 15 days from today.”

The court further directed that the case be listed for reporting compliance regarding the payment of costs. The judgment recorded, “Post the matter ‘for reporting compliance’ with regard to payment of costs on 20.03.2025.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Appellant:  D. Ravichander., Special Government Pleader 

For Respondent: P. Godson Swaminathan, Advocate from M/s. Isaac Chambers.

Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. The Principal and Secretary, St. Christopher’s College of Education
Case Number: W.A. No. 574 of 2025
Bench: Justice R. Subramanian, Justice G. Arul Murugan

[Read/Download order]