Disposed

Karuppasamy .P v. The Vice Chancellor

Madras HC26 Jun 2023WP(MD)/6179/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that while petitioners may lack a legal right to reinstatement, the university cannot illegally recruit temporary employees to fill their disengaged posts. The university was directed to prepare a seniority list for the employees.

What did the court decide?

University directed to prepare a seniority list of disengaged employees within eight weeks and fill vacancies on a regular basis; writ petitions disposed.

Karuppasamy .P Vs The Vice Chancellor — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)Nos.6179 of 2023 etc., batch

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)Nos.6179, 9262, 14409 & 14350 of 2023 & W.P.(MD)Nos.11683, 11684, 11685, 9262, 10446, 11589, 12315, 12815, 12889, 12956, 14210, 14211, 14212, 18869, 19084, 19123 &

¶7

19181 of 2022

¶8

and

¶9

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8264, 8272, 8274, 7517, 8190, 8745, 9093, 9147, 9203, 10155, 10156,10163,13769, 13937, 13961, 13984 & 8852 of 2022 & W.M.P.(MD)Nos.12160 & 12161 of 2023

¶10

In W.P.(MD)No.6179 of 2023

¶11

P.Karuppasamy ... Petitioner

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.The Vice Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai-625 021.

¶14

2.The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University,

¶15

Madurai 625 021.

¶16

3.The Public Relation Officer, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai-625 021. ... Respondents

¶17

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to restore the service

¶18

1/10

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P(MD)Nos.6179 of 2023 etc., batch

¶21

of the petitioner in the Respondent Madurai Kamaraj University with all arrears of salary from 08.04.2022 and consequently, regularize the petitioner in service for the post of Assistant to the Food and Beverages Manager and as per Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Conferment of Permanent Status of Workmen Act, 1981, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 10.09.2022 & 22.01.2023.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Pinaygash

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.T.Cibichakraborthy Standing Counsel

¶24

COMMON ORDER

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and

¶26

the learned standing counsel appearing for the Madurai Kamaraj University.

¶27

The writ petitioners herein have been working on consolidated

¶28

pay in the respondent university. They were disengaged. They seek restoration of their services. They also contend that after terminating them, the University has recruited candidates from open market in temporary capacity.

¶29

The respondent University has filed its counter affidavit. The learned standing counsel took me through its contents. The stand of the University has been set out in the counter affidavit. Paragraph Nos.21 to

¶30

30 of the counter affidavit read as follows:-

¶31

2/10

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P(MD)Nos.6179 of 2023 etc., batch

¶34

3/10

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P(MD)Nos.6179 of 2023 etc., batch

¶37

4/10

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P(MD)Nos.6179 of 2023 etc., batch

¶40

5/10

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P(MD)Nos.6179 of 2023 etc., batch

¶43

6/10

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P(MD)Nos.6179 of 2023 etc., batch

¶46

7/10

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P(MD)Nos.6179 of 2023 etc., batch

¶49

He submitted that the petitioners have no legal right as such and that no

¶50

relief can be granted in this writ petitions.

¶51

I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The petitioners herein may not have legal right to seek reinstatement as such. But having disengaged the writ petitioners, the University cannot resort to recruitment of temporary employees in their places. That would be clearly illegal. Of-course, the University can fill up the posts in question on regular basis.

¶52

The learned standing counsel clarify that the University will prepare the seniority list of the disengaged employees. In the said seniority list, their dates of original appointment, number of days put in by them as well as the Section or Department in which they were working will be duly reflected. The petitioners will be taken back subject to preference and priority to the seniors among them as and when appointments are made in temporary or consolidated capacity in the vacancies in the respective department. The exercise of preparation of seniority list will be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and copy of the same will be served on the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶53

8/10

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

W.P(MD)Nos.6179 of 2023 etc., batch

¶56

Recording the aforesaid stand of the University, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶57

26.06.2023

¶58

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

¶59

9/10

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

W.P(MD)Nos.6179 of 2023 etc., batch

¶62

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶63

rmi

¶64

W.P(MD)No.6179 of 2023 etc., batch

¶65

26.06.2023

¶66

10/10

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Karuppasamy .P v. The Vice Chancellor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuppasamy .P v. The Vice Chancellor

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

Kumar a Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Ashok Kumar M Vs The Director General of Police

Ganesan.R Vs The Director of Khadhi and Village Industries

Murugesan K Vs The Superintending Engineer

Haripriya.G Vs The Secretary

Bhavithra Devi Vs The Commissioner