Madras High Court
M.Anandakrishnan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 2 March, 2021
W.P. No. 23279 of 204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
W.P. No. 23279 of 2004
and
W.M.P. No. 28168 of 2004
M.Anandakrishnan,
Member-Syndicate,
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the
Secretary to Education,
Chennai - 9.
2. The Vice-Chancellor,
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Registrar,
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Tirunelveli District.
4. The All India Council of Technical Education,
Regional Office,
Chennai.
5. The University Grants Commission,
Regional Office,
Hyderabad. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 23279 of 204
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of Writ of Declaration declaring the entire
selection process in the appointment of Professor / Reader / Lecturer
pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.06.2004 is illegal, violative of
guidelines of the respondents 1, 4 and 5 and invalided.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents : Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1
Mr.I.Calvin Jones
for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R2&R3
Mr.N.Muralikrishnan
ACGSC for R4
Mr.R.Gopinath for R5
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Declaration declaring
the entire selection process in the appointment of Professor / Reader /
Lecturer pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.06.2004 is illegal,
violative of guidelines of the respondents 1, 4 and 5 and invalided.
2. The petitioner was the member of the Syndicate of the second
respondent University namely Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
seeks for declaration declaring the selection process in the appointment
of Professor / Reader / Lecturer pursuant to the advertisement dated
23.06.2004 issued by the University as illegal or violative of the first,
fourth and fifth respondents guidelines.
3. When this case is taken up for final hearing today, there is no
representation for the petitioner. However, the learned Standing counsel
appearing for the respondents University submitted that, since the
petitioner being the member of the Syndicate, at that time, whatever
decision taken by the University Syndicate, he cannot question such
decision taken by the University through his Syndicate, which is the
highest executive body of the University. In this regard, the law has been
well settled, he contended and he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in (1994) 3 SCC 220 made in Bihar Public Service
Commission and another vs. Dr.Shiv Jatan Thakur and others.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4. I have heard the said submissions made by the learned Standing
counsel appearing for the respondents University and have perused the
materials placed before this Court.
5. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Standing counsel
appearing for the University, the petitioner was the member of the
Syndicate of the University at the relevant point of time. If at all the
petitioner had any grievance regarding the manner in which the
notification was issued by the University for selection and appointment
of faculties, that could have been raised before the University Syndicate
which is a highest decision making body of the University.
6. If at all, such issue has been raised by the petitioner, whatever
decision taken by the Syndicate either by unanimity or majority, that
should be the decision of the University. Therefore, even if the petitioner
has got a different view on any decision taken by the University at their
Syndicate, that cannot be questioned by the Syndicate member in the
Court of Law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7. In this context, the law as has been pointed out by the learned
Standing counsel, is well settled in the aforecited judgment, which reads
thus:
"28. Shri R.K. Garg, Senior Advocate, who appeared
for Dr. Thakur, the petitioner in the writ petition,
since did not make any submission in support of the
reliefs sought in paragraphs (B) and (C) of the
prayer in the writ petition, we do not feel the need to
consider them. Shri Garg, we are inclined to think,
did not make any submission in support of the reliefs
sought in paragraphs (B) and (C) obviously realizing
that the allegations on which those reliefs were
founded, related to functions of the BPSC, which
could not have been disowned by the BPSC's sitting
member. Whatever that be, no member of a Public
Service Commission, in our considered view, could
be allowed to question the validity or correctness of
the functions performed or duties discharged by the
Public Service Commission as a body, while he was
its member. It ought be so for the simple reason that,
such member must be regarded to be a party to the
function required to be performed or the duty
required to be discharged by the Public Service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Commission as a body or institution, even though he
might have been a dissenting member or a member in
a minority or a member who had abstained from
taking part in such function performed or duty
discharged. Discretionary remedy vested in the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot,
therefore, be allowed to be invoked by a member of
the Public Service Commission to question the
correctness or validity of functions performed or
duties discharged by the Public Service Commission
as a body or institution, according to well
established procedures."
8. There are number of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in that line, therefore, there would be no second opinion, that, a
person, who has already been the member of any decision making body,
cannot question the decision of such decision making body in the Court
of Law and if at all, any member of that decision making body has got
grievance for a particular decision, that can be only raised in that forum.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
9. In view of that legal position, this Court feels that, the petitioner
does not have the locus to challenge the University Syndicate's decision,
being a member of the Syndicate at relevant point of time and therefore,
on that ground itself, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed,
accordingly it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
02.03.2021
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
vji
To
1. The Secretary to Education,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai - 9.
2. The Vice-Chancellor,
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Registrar,
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Tirunelveli District.
4. The All India Council of Technical Education,
Regional Office, Chennai.
5. The University Grants Commission,
Regional Office, Hyderabad.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
vji
W.P. No. 23279 of 2004
and
W.M.P. No. 28168 of 2004
02.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
