C.R.Senthilkumar Vs the Registrar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.09.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO.3276 OF 2019

¶7

C.R.Senthilkumar

¶8

...Appellant

¶9

vs.

¶10

The Registrar,
Annamalai University
Annamalai Nagar,
Chidambaram-608 002....Respondent

¶11

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent
against the order dated 22.03.2019 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.17846 of 2018.

¶12

Prayer in W.P.No.17846 of 2018 : Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records
pertaining to the University Order No.661/2017(c), dated
15.05.2017 issued by respondent and quash the same as
unconstitutional arbitrary unreasonable being violative of the
rules and principles of natural justice and thereby direct the
respondent herein to reinstate the Petitioner in Annamalai
University.

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

(Judgment of the Court delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.)

¶15

Aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2019 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17846 of 2018, the Writ
Petitioner has filed the present Writ Appeal.

¶16

2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
Appellant is that, the Respondent University will have to re-
post the Appellant in their University, as several others
including the Appellant's juniors have been re-posted in the

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

Respondent University. According to the learned counsel, there
is no fixed staff strength and there is no authenticated
seniority list available. Even going by the counter in the
present Writ Appeal, juniors to the Appellant have been re-
posted in the Respondent University and that, the action of the
Respondent University in continuing the Appellant/Writ
Petitioner beyond three years in terms of the guidelines framed,
is illegal and that, after completion of three years, the period
has been extended by one year. Again, for one more year, the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner has been asked to serve the University.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Writ Petitioner
submitted that, in the earlier round of litigation, the Court,
based on the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the
RespondentUniversity,observedthat,whenthe
placement/deployment is only for a period of three years, the
action of the Respondent University in not re-posting the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner in service is completely illegal.
Hence, according to the learned counsel, the order of the
learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with.

¶20

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
University submitted that, financial and administrative
mismanagement over the years has resulted in closure of the
Respondent University in November 2012 and that, an
Administrator has been appointed. He drew the attention of this
Court to the recommendations made by the Administrator as could
be seen in G.O.Ms.No.106, Higher Education (I1) Department,
dated 28.04.2017 furnished at page No.19 of the Typed Set of
Papers filed by the Appellant. For better appreciation, relevant
portion of the same is extracted below:

¶21

“The Administrator has made the following recommendations:

¶22

➢ Re-deployment of surplus staff

¶23

➢ Revision of Block Grant

¶24

➢ Converting the University into affiliation type

¶25

➢ Takeover of Medical College and Hospital by Government and

¶26

➢ Sanction of special financial package to improve the financial position of the Annamalai University.”

¶27

5. It is further stated by the learned counsel appearing
for the Respondent University that, based on the recommendations
of the Administrator, it has been decided to depute surplus
teaching staff of Annamalai University to Government Colleges in
consultation with the Vice-Chancellor of Annamalai University.
In that process, vacancies have been identified in various
Government Colleges and Professors have been posted at various
places. As many as 370 surplus teaching staff in the post of

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

Assistant Professor have been identified when G.O.Ms.No.106,
Higher Education (I1) Department, dated 28.04.2017 was passed,
apart from 86 vacancies in the post of Assistant Professor in
the Government Colleges of Engineering. The Government, while
passing the said Government Order, has imposed certain terms and
conditions with regard to appointment of surplus staff in
Government Colleges of Engineering. Apart from all other
conditions, it has been mentioned that, after completion of
three years service on agreement basis, they shall be recruited
back to Annamalai University and the service rendered by the
staff in the other Colleges will be counted for the purpose of
other service benefits.

¶30

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
University further submitted that, even though the agreement of
employment was for a period of three years, depending upon the
exigency and taking note of the fact that, the University has
been closed, to safeguard the interest of Professors and their
families, the Government has taken a decision to provide
employment to them and only on the basis of the Agreement, the
service of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has been continued
beyond three years.

¶31

7. It is further contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent University that, it is incorrect to
state that, the Appellant's seniors have not been disturbed. As
the services of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was required, he
was continued in service apart from the fact that, staff vide
S.Nos.53 to 89 in the Annexure to the counter affidavit, have
also been deputed and they have not been called back by the
Respondent University. Even if they are going to be called
back, naturally, they have to be given employment elsewhere, and
there is no chance to provide employment in the Respondent
University, as it has already been closed. Hence, according to
the learned counsel for the Respondent University, the Writ
appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused
the material documents available on record.

¶33

9. It is not in dispute that, the Appellant/Writ
Petitioner is one of the affected persons on account of closure
of the Respondent University and pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.106,
Higher Education (I1) Department, dated 28.04.2017, the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner was deputed in some other College and
is continuing in service there. Merely because, the Appellant's
service period is over, it does not mean that, he can be called
back. Depending upon the exigency in work, his services may be
utilized in any other College. That apart, there is a
categorical averment that, staff vide S.Nos.53 to 89 in the
Annexure to the counter Affidavit, who are seniors to the

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

Appellant/Writ Petitioner have continued in service only by
virtue of the said Government Order.

¶36

10. Since, based on the recommendations of the
Administrator, the Government has taken a decision to give new
lease of life to Teachers/Professors, who will otherwise be
stranded on account of closure of the University, the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner, cannot, as a matter of right contend
that, he has to be reposted in the University on completion of
three years of service. Ultimately, it is the decision of the
Administrator and there are no malafides on the part of the
Respondent University in reposting a person beyond three years,
more so, when he has continued in service pursuant to the
Government Order.

¶37

11. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order
dated 22.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.17846 of 2018. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.26080 of
2019 is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-III)
// True Copy //

¶38

(aeb)

¶39

To:

¶40

The Registrar,
Annamalai University
Annamalai Nagar,
Chidambaram-608 002.

¶41

+1cc to Mr.A.R.Suresh, Advocate SR.No.43828

¶42

+1cc to M/s.Isaac Chambers, Advocate SR.No.44416

¶43

WRIT APPEAL No.3276 OF 2019

¶44

PA(CO)
RVM(06/10/2021)

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.R.Senthilkumar v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.R.Senthilkumar v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chairman Vs v. Lakshmikandhan

R.Geethanjali Vs The Deputy General Manager

The Secretary to the Government Vs S.H.Vasanthakumari