Dismissed¶¶40

S.Kumarasamy v. the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University

Madras HC23 Jan 2026WA(MD)/404/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Manonmaniam Sundaranar University; W.A.(MD)No.404 of 2021; C.M.P(MD)No.1490 of 2021; W.P(MD)No.21024 of 2014; retrospective regularisation; NMR employees; daily wage; old pension scheme; Syndicate resolution 08.09.2008; sanctioned post; irregular appointment; act of concession; Clause 15 Letters Patent; Tirunelveli; writ appeal dismissed 23.01.2026; G.R. Swaminathan J.; R. Kalaimathi J.

What did the court decide?

None — writ appeal dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P(MD)No.1490 of 2021 closed. ¶¶40

S.Kumarasamy Vs the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — writ appeal dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P(MD)No.1490 of 2021 closed.

¶¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants, whose services were regularised in 2008, were entitled to retrospective regularisation with effect from 02.11.2002 pursuant to the Syndicate resolution, so as to be placed under the old pension scheme. +1 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

A person who has put in service can be regularised only in a sanctioned post; written instructions confirmed that vacancies in the sanctioned posts in which the appellants were accommodated arose only in the year 2008, therefore the University cannot be faulted for having regularised the appellants only in 2008.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

The appellants were not selected by adopting proper procedure and their appointments can rightly be characterised as irregular; even the benefit of regularisation itself was an act of concession, and therefore the question of granting further benefit by retrospectively regularising them with effect from 02.11.2002 cannot be considered at all.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

The learned single Judge gave strong and convincing reasons for denying the benefit sought by the appellants; interference with the said order is not warranted, and the writ appeal stands dismissed with no costs, the connected miscellaneous petition being closed.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) — Regularisation of service / Old pension scheme. Appellants, former NMR employees on daily wages of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University (joined 1994-1999), regularised in various posts in 2008, sought retrospective regularisation with effect from 02.11.2002 relying on an unimplemented Syndicate resolution (dated 08.09.2008, never recalled or withdrawn) so as to be placed under the old pension scheme. The learned single Judge dismissed W.P(MD)No.21024 of 2014 on 12.10.2020. Held by the Division Bench (G.R. Swaminathan J.): (i) regularisation is possible only in a sanctioned post, and vacancies in the sanctioned posts arose only in 2008, so the University cannot be faulted for regularising the appellants only in 2008; (ii) the appellants were not selected through proper procedure, their appointments were irregular, regularisation itself was an act of concession, and retrospective regularisation from 02.11.2002 could not be considered; (iii) the single Judge's reasons were strong and convincing and interference was not warranted. Writ appeal dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.404 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI W.A(MD)No.404 of 2021

¶8

and

¶9

C.M.P(MD)No.1490 of 2021

¶10

1.S.Kumarasamy 2.E.Kasirajan 3.P.Kanagaraj 4.S.Murugan 5.P.Saravanan 6.S.Sakthivel 7.M.Murugesan 8.P.Selvam 9.K.Gomathinayagam 10.R.Paramasivan 11.R.Gopalakrishnan 12.M.Maharajan 13.V.Vijayalakshmi 14.V.Velmurugan 15.S.Ramakrishnan 16.S.Dhanushkodi Arumugam 17.S.Thangavel 18.B.Devaraj (Died) 19.R.Manoharan 20.P.Kumar 21.S.Babukrishnan 22.P.Karuppiah 23.G.S.Murugan 24.M.Muthupandi

¶11

1/6

¶12

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

¶13

W.A.(MD)No.404 of 2021

¶14

25.S.Mariammal 26.P.Pichumani

¶15

... Appellants / Petitioners

¶16

Vs.

¶17

The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Represented by its Registrar, Abishekapatti – 627 012, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent / Respondent

¶18

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.21024 of 2014 dated 12.10.2020 on the file of this Court.

¶19

For Appellants : Mr.Karthick for M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy Associates For Respondent : Ms.Jasuma Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

¶22

The unsuccessful writ petitioners are the appellants before us.

¶23

2.The appellants joined Manonmaniam Sundaranar University as

¶24

NMR employees on daily wage basis during the period 1994-1999. Their services were regularised in the year 2008 in various posts. Based on their demand, Syndicate passed a resolution that they may be

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.A.(MD)No.404 of 2021

¶28

retrospectively regularised with effect from 02.11.2002 so that they can be placed under the old pension scheme. Since the Syndicate resolution was not implemented, the appellants herein filed W.P(MD)No.21024 of 2014 for directing the employer / University to retrospectively regularise their services with effect from 02.11.2002 and consequently place them under the old pension scheme. The learned single Judge vide order dated 12.10.2020 dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal came to be filed.

¶29

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of appeal. His core submission was that the Syndicate is the competent body and that its resolution cannot be ignored. According to him, so long as the resolution is holding good, it has to be implemented. He pointed out that even though the resolution was passed as early as on 08.09.2008, till date it has not been recalled or withdrawn. The learned counsel took us through the statutory scheme and stressed that the resolution has to be necessarily enforced.

¶30

4.Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University submitted that the impugned order of the learned single Judge does not call for interference.

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.A.(MD)No.404 of 2021

¶34

5.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

¶35

6.A person who has put in service can be regularised only in a sanctioned post. We wanted to know as to when vacancies arose in the sanctioned posts in which the appellants were accommodated in the year 2008. The learned Standing Counsel obtained written instructions and clarified that the vacancies arose only in the year 2008. Therefore, we cannot fault the University for having regularised the appellants only in the year 2008.

¶36

7.We also notice that the appellants were not selected by adopting proper procedure. Their appointments can be rightly be characterized as irregular. That is why, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that even the benefit of regularisation itself was an act of concession and therefore the question of granting them further benefit by retrospectively regularising them with effect from 02.11.2002 cannot be considered at all. The learned single Judge has given strong and convincing reasons for denying the benefit sought for by the appellants. Interference with the said order is not warranted.

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.A.(MD)No.404 of 2021

¶40

8.This Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

¶41

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

[G.R.S., J.] [R.K.M, J.] 23.01.2026