The Registrar Vs S Jayakannan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The Registrar Vs S Jayakannan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondents directed to consider the petitioner's representation afresh by placing the matter before the finance committee and syndicate for passing resolution in the light of the Government Orders referred above (G.O.Ms.Nos.338 dated 26.08.2010, 325 dated 22.07.2013 and 91 dated 22.04.2019), on its own merits, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order in W.P.No.22803 of 2023 dated 02.08.2023 — carrying, in paragraph 5, a positive direction on change of designation under the Government Orders — should be reviewed, given the review petitioner's contention that he was not heard in the writ petition and that no notice was served on him. +1 more

Court's answer

With the above direction, the Review Application is disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation afresh by placing the matter before the finance committee and syndicate for passing resolution in the light of the above-referred Government Orders, on its own merits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HC | REV.APLW No. 60 of 2025 | 25-03-2025 | N. Sathish Kumar, J. — The Registrar, Annamalai University (styled Appellant; the 'review petitioner' in the body) sought review of paragraph 5 of this Court's order dated 02.08.2023 in W.P.No.22803 of 2023, contending that paragraph 5 carried a 'positive direction' (that a designation change stipulated by G.O.Ms.Nos.338 dated 26.08.2010, 325 dated 22.07.2013 and 91 dated 22.04.2019 shall be implemented notwithstanding that the finance committee and syndicate had not approved) and that the University was not heard and no notice was served in the writ petition. The Court recorded that the earlier order had been passed at the admission stage on the instructions of the respondents, particularly the Additional Government Pleader, with none appearing for the University; noted the petitioner's prior approach in W.P.No.25907 of 2022 and that the matter referred to the finance committee and syndicate on 27.02.2024 had been deferred; and, disposing of the review, directed the respondents to consider S. Jayakannan's representation afresh before the finance committee and syndicate for passing resolution in the light of the said Government Orders, on its own merits, within three months from receipt of a copy of the order.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 02.08.2023 of this Court in W.P.No.22803 of 2023; paragraph 5 of that order contained a 'positive direction' regarding implementation of designation change under the Government Orders, and is the subject of this review, the review petitioner alleging he was not heard and no notice was served in the writ petition.¶¶17
High Court of Judicature at Madras · 02.08.2023
Prior proceeding
The writ petition was originally filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass order in terms of G.O.Ms.Nos.338 dated 26.08.2010, 325 dated 22.07.2013 and 91 dated 22.04.2019.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
As the petitioner had already approached the Court in W.P.No.25907 of 2022, the Court had directed the respondent (the present review petitioner) to place the matter before the finance committee and syndicate for passing resolution in the light of the Government Orders referred above (identifier 'W.P.No.25907 of 2022' at ¶25, immediately preceding the quoted span).¶¶26
Prior proceeding
While disposing the writ petition, in paragraph 5, the Court had captured a positive direction: if the Government Order stipulates change of designation it shall be implemented; denying such right merely because the finance committee and the syndicate have not approved cannot be countenanced; it is for the finance committee and syndicate to take a decision and pass the final order; and the proceedings not being finally decided by them does not mean the petitioner is not at all entitled to such relief (continuation at ¶27, ¶30-¶32).¶¶26
Prior proceeding
The above order was passed at the admission stage itself on the basis of the instructions of the respondents, particularly the Additional Government Pleader, and none appeared on behalf of the University.¶¶34
Prior proceeding
The matter had already been referred to the finance committee and syndicate on 27.02.2024 and the same had been deferred.¶¶36