Dismissed

The Vice Chancellor v. R.Ravichandran

Madras HC21 Aug 2024WA(MD)/1373/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed writ appeals filed by the Vice Chancellor and Registrar of Bharathidasan University. The Court upheld the Writ Court's finding that the University cannot rename employees selected for Assistant posts as Junior Assistants to place them in a lower pay matrix. Declaring such action impermissible as it benefits from a selection for a higher post to appoint to a feeder c

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeals were dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed; no costs awarded.

The Vice Chancellor Vs R.Ravichandran — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.(MD) Nos.1373 to 1396 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.A.(MD) Nos.1373 to 1396 of 2024 and

¶7

C.M.P.(MD) Nos.10640, 10642, 10643, 10644, 10645, 10646, 10647, 10649, 10650, 10652, 10654, 10656, 10658, 10660, 10662, 10651, 10653, 10657, 10659, 10661, 10663, 10664, 10665, 10666, 10667, 10668, 10670, 10671, 10673, 10676, 10678, 10672, 10674, 10680, 10681, 10677, 10679, 10816, 10817, 10822, 10824, 10829, 10830, 10831, 10832, 10834 & 10835 of 2024

¶8

W.A.(MD)No.1373 of 2024:-

¶9

1.The Vice Chancellor, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶10

2.The Registrar, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District. ... Appellants

¶11

-vs-

¶12

1.R.Ravichandran, Junior Assistant, Registrar Office - H Section, Bharathidasan University, Trichy - 24.

¶13

Page 1 of 7

¶14

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

¶15

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, St. George Fort, Chennai.

¶16

W.A.(MD) Nos.1373 to 1396 of 2024

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order,

¶19

dated 21.03.2024, passed in W.P.(MD) No.21753 of 2021.

¶20

For Appellants : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Standing Counsel For R1 : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.H.Mohamed Imran for M/s.Ajmal Associates For R2 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader

¶21

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶22

[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]

¶23

The University is on appeals aggrieved by the order of the Writ Court,

¶24

directing it to maintain the designation of the petitioners before the Writ Court as Assistants.

¶25

Page 2 of 7

¶26

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

¶27

W.A.(MD) Nos.1373 to 1396 of 2024

¶28

2 . The University issued a Notification on 08.01.2017 calling for

¶29

applications from eligible persons for the post of Assistant. The petitioners in the Writ Petitions / first respondents in each of these Writ Appeals participated in the selection process and were selected for appointment.

¶30

3 . As per the service rules of the University, they were appointed

¶31

temporarily on daily wage basis on 10.04.2017. After lapse of one year, the first respondents in all these Writ Appeals were regularized in the post of Junior Assistant instead of being regularized in the post of Assistant. The first respondents in all these Writ Appeals filed Writ Petitions questioning the order dated 29.08.2019 and seeking a direction to the University to appoint them as Assistants in conformity with the Notification under which they were appointed.

¶32

4 . Before the Writ Court, the University pleaded that there is a change

¶33

in the existing nomenclature of the post of Assistant to that of Junior Assistant and excepting such change, there is no change in the service conditions. The resolution of the Syndicate of the University dated 06.10.2001, was relied upon.

¶34

Page 3 of 7

¶35

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

¶36

W.A.(MD) Nos.1373 to 1396 of 2024

¶37

5 . The Writ Court has held that the resolution of the Syndicate does not

¶38

disclose any change in such designation. It only provides that existing Junior Assistants will be designated as Assistants and the post of Assistant was always retained.

¶39

6 . Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

¶40

University would seek to rely upon a subsequent Resolution of the Syndicate dated 22.01.2018, wherein, according to him, the Syndicate had decided that the Junior Assistant posts be re-introduced. The scale of pay for the post of Assistant

¶41

in the University is Rs.3,200 - 85 - 4,900, but the same was revised as Rs.3,625 - 85 - 4,900 by the resolution of the Syndicate dated 28.12.2001.

¶42

7 . It is the contention of Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Standing

¶43

Counsel appearing for the University that the University Syndicate in its Meeting held on 22.01.2018 decided to adopt the pay matrix and pay cell on par with the employees of the Government of Tamil Nadu.

¶44

Page 4 of 7

¶45

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

¶46

W.A.(MD) Nos.1373 to 1396 of 2024

¶47

8 . According to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University, this resolution would in effect re-introduced the post of Junior Assistant, which was abolished in the year 2001. We are not able to read the resolution in the manner suggested by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University. This resolution, passed in 2018, states that the pay matrix and pay cell will be on par with the employees of the Government of Tamil Nadu. This resolution does not deal with the categorization of the employees.

¶48

9 . Having called for applications for the post of Assistant, conducted a selection process, and appointed individuals to the position temporarily on a daily wage basis, the University cannot now rechristened them as Junior Assistants and place them in a lower pay matrix or pay cell. What the University is attempting is to conduct a selection process for a higher post, for which lower posts serve as a feeder category, and then appoint the selected candidates to the lower post. In our opinion, this is impermissible. The Writ Court has also observed that the University's service rules still provide for promotion from the post of Junior Assistant to Assistant. Therefore, a person, who has participated in the recruitment process for a higher post cannot be appointed to a feeder category

¶49

___________ Page 5 of 7_

¶50

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

¶51

W.A.(MD) Nos.1373 to 1396 of 2024

¶52

position. Hence, we see no merit in the Writ Appeals. The Writ Appeals are therefore dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶53

NCC : Yes / No [R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.] Index : Yes / No 21.08.2024 smn2

¶54

To:-

¶55

The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department, St. George Fort, Chennai.

¶56

Page 6 of 7

¶57

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

¶58

W.A.(MD) Nos.1373 to 1396 of 2024

¶59

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶60

smn2

¶61

Common Judgment in W.A.(MD) Nos.1373 to 1396 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD) Nos.10640, 10642, 10643, 10644, 10645, 10646, 10647, 10649, 10650, 10652, 10654, 10656, 10658, 10660, 10662, 10651, 10653, 10657, 10659, 10661, 10663, 10664, 10665, 10666, 10667, 10668, 10670, 10671, 10673, 10676, 10678, 10672, 10674, 10680, 10681, 10677, 10679, 10816, 10817, 10822, 10824, 10829, 10830, 10831, 10832, 10834 & 10835 of 2024

¶62

21.08.2024

¶63

Page 7 of 7

¶64

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

The Vice Chancellor v. R.Ravichandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Vice Chancellor v. R.Ravichandran

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

J.Valarmery Vs The District Collector

Pappa Chrishma.C Vs The Chief Manager

Karpaga Narayanan .N Vs The District Collector

Kasinadhan Vs Meyyappan

Chellappa.S Vs The Chairman / District Collector

Dinesh Babu. K Vs The Branch Manager