General staffing-ratio orders cannot restrict aided minority colleges’ appointments to sanctioned posts.

Fatima College, a Government-aided minority institution, appointed seven Office Assistants between 2018 and 2024 to fill vacancies in sanctioned non-teaching posts.

It sought approval and salary grant-in-aid in August 2024.

The Joint Director rejected the proposal, relying on G.O. Ms. No. 128 dated 21 February 2006 and a 2018 departmental letter, which restricted Office Assistant appointments by a staff ratio, and also citing delay in submission.

The College challenged that decision.

A Single Judge allowed its writ petition; the State appealed.

1. Whether the State could rely on G.O. Ms. No. 128 and the 2018 departmental letter to restrict appointments to sanctioned non-teaching posts made by an aided minority college.

2. Whether the delay in submitting the approval proposal justified denying approval and grant-in-aid for the seven appointments.

Article 30 of the Constitution protects a minority institution’s right to establish and administer its institution, including the appointment of staff, subject to applicable qualifications and statutory requirements.

Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 provides for fixation of staff strength, while Rule 11(3) permits management to fill regular vacancies in sanctioned posts with qualified candidates.

The Court relied on The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Secretary, Nirmala College for Women, W.A. Nos. 2096 and 2124 of 2019, and The State v. Women’s Christian College, Nagercoil, W.A. (MD) Nos. 532 to 534 of 2020, concerning appointment to sanctioned non-teaching posts.

It distinguished State of Uttar Pradesh v. Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College, which recognized the Government’s power to impose grant-in-aid conditions and adopt staffing policies, holding that restrictions affecting minority institutions must be imposed by the competent authority under the governing statute or rules.

G.O. Ms. No. 128 was a general order concerning Government offices and was not made specifically for the College.

The Court held that neither it nor the unmarked 2018 departmental communication could override the management’s authority under Rule 11 to fill sanctioned posts with qualified candidates or curtail its Article 30 rights.

The delay was plausibly attributable to the authorities’ delay in approving the appointments of the previous incumbents.

Because the posts were sanctioned and the appointments were undisputed, delay alone did not justify denying grant-in-aid; the State had produced no material suggesting mala fides or other impropriety.

The Court distinguished S.R. Jasmine Levy v. State of Tamil Nadu because that case involved non-sanctioned posts and an unexplained delay exceeding eight years.

It held that the cited Government Order and departmental letter could not be used to reject the appointments to the sanctioned posts, and that the explained delay did not warrant denial of approval and grant-in-aid.

The writ appeal was dismissed, and the State was granted eight weeks to comply with the Single Judge’s order; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.