Subsequent approval can validate an earlier university resolution on promotion criteria when prior approval is not required.

Where a statute requires an act to be done "with the approval" of the State Government, and does not insist on prior approval, the approval may be obtained after the executive act and still validate it unless disapproved. Applying that distinction between approval and permission, the Supreme Court noted that the University's Executive Council had authority to fix service conditions for non-teaching staff subject to State approval. The later approval therefore cured the earlier resolution fixing promotion criteria, and the promotions made under it remained valid. The challenge to the resolution accordingly failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the University's resolution fixing promotion criteria for non-teaching staff was valid when the State Government's approval was obtained after the resolution and after promotions had been made on that basis.

Analysis: Section 21(xiii) of the Burdwan University Act, 1981 empowered the Executive Council to determine the terms and conditions of service of non-teaching staff with the approval of the State Government. The expression used was "with the approval of the State Government", not "with prior approval" or "with permission". Approval may therefore follow the act done by the Executive Council, and the action remains effective unless and until it is disapproved. The distinction between approval and permission was applied to hold that the subsequent approval could validate the earlier resolution and the promotions made pursuant to it.

Conclusion: The promotions made on the basis of the resolution dated 26.06.1995 were valid, and the challenge to the resolution failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires an act to be done "with approval" and does not require prior approval, the approval may be obtained subsequently and will validate the earlier act unless it is disapproved.

---