Writ petition on teaching-appointment approval restored for adjudication on merits after rejection on maintainability grounds.

The appellant challenged the rejection of her writ petition, W.P. No. 20775 of 2025, concerning approval of her appointment as a member of the teaching staff of Ethiraj College for Women.

The Writ Court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was not maintainable, treating the matter as a management dispute.

The appellant contended that the dispute instead concerned governmental approval of the appointment.

She relied on the Division Bench’s decision in W.A. Nos. 2060 to 2064 of 2025, involving similarly placed Assistant Professors, where the writ orders had been set aside and the matters remanded for consideration on merits.

Whether the writ petition concerning approval of the appellant’s appointment to the teaching staff was improperly rejected as not maintainable on the ground that it involved a management dispute.

Whether the writ petition ought to be restored and remanded to the Writ Court for adjudication on merits in light of the decision in the connected matters involving similarly placed Assistant Professors.

The appeal was considered under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, which confers appellate jurisdiction over eligible judgments of a Single Judge.

The Court applied the principle that similarly situated cases concerning the same legal and factual controversy should receive consistent treatment.

It relied upon the Division Bench decision in W.A. Nos. 2060 to 2064 of 2025, which had set aside the writ orders and remanded the matters for consideration on merits.

No specific statutory provision or independent precedent was discussed in the judgment regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.

The appellant’s submission was that the dispute related to approval of appointment by the collegiate education authorities, rather than a purely internal management dispute.

Since the Division Bench had already adopted a course of setting aside the writ orders and remanding similar cases for consideration on merits, the Court held that the appellant’s matter should be treated consistently.

Without deciding the underlying entitlement to approval, the Court concluded that the Writ Court’s rejection at the threshold was liable to be set aside and that the issues required examination on merits.

The writ petition was restored to the file and remanded to the Writ Court for consideration of the issues on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.