Madras High Court
C.R.Senthilkumar vs The Registrar on 1 September, 2021
Writ Appeal No.3276 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
Writ Appeal No.3276 of 2019
C.R.Senthilkumar ... Appellant
vs.
The Registrar,
Annamalai University
Annamalai Nagar,
Chidambaram-608 002. ... Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 22.03.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.17846 of 2018.
For Appellant : A.R.Suresh
For Respondent : Mr.Godson Swaminath
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
Aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2019 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.17846 of 2018, the Writ Petitioner has filed the present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Appeal No.3276 of 2019
Writ Appeal.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant is
that, the Respondent University will have to re-post the Appellant in their
University, as several others including the Appellant's juniors have been re-
posted in the Respondent University. According to the learned counsel, there
is no fixed staff strength and there is no authenticated seniority list available.
Even going by the counter in the present Writ Appeal, juniors to the
Appellant have been re-posted in the Respondent University and that, the
action of the Respondent University in continuing the Appellant/Writ
Petitioner beyond three years in terms of the guidelines framed, is illegal and
that, after completion of three years, the period has been extended by one
year. Again, for one more year, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has been asked
to serve the University.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Writ Petitioner submitted
that, in the earlier round of litigation, the Court, based on the statement of the
learned counsel appearing for the Respondent University, observed that,
when the placement/deployment is only for a period of three years, the action
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Appeal No.3276 of 2019
of the Respondent University in not re-posting the Appellant/Writ Petitioner
in service is completely illegal. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the
order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent University
submitted that, financial and administrative mismanagement over the years
has resulted in closure of the Respondent University in November 2012 and
that, an Administrator has been appointed. He drew the attention of this
Court to the recommendations made by the Administrator as could be seen in
G.O.Ms.No.106, Higher Education (I1) Department, dated 28.04.2017
furnished at page No.19 of the Typed Set of Papers filed by the Appellant.
For better appreciation, relevant portion of the same is extracted below:
“The Administrator has made the following
recommendations:
➢ Re-deployment of surplus staff
➢ Revision of Block Grant
➢ Converting the University into affiliation
type
➢ Takeover of Medical College and Hospital
by Government and
➢ Sanction of special financial package to
improve the financial position of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Appeal No.3276 of 2019
Annamalai University.”
5. It is further stated by the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent University that, based on the recommendations of the
Administrator, it has been decided to depute surplus teaching staff of
Annamalai University to Government Colleges in consultation with the Vice-
Chancellor of Annamalai University. In that process, vacancies have been
identified in various Government Colleges and Professors have been posted
at various places. As many as 370 surplus teaching staff in the post of
Assistant Professor have been identified when G.O.Ms.No.106, Higher
Education (I1) Department, dated 28.04.2017 was passed, apart from 86
vacancies in the post of Assistant Professor in the Government Colleges of
Engineering. The Government, while passing the said Government Order,
has imposed certain terms and conditions with regard to appointment of
surplus staff in Government Colleges of Engineering. Apart from all other
conditions, it has been mentioned that, after completion of three years service
on agreement basis, they shall be recruited back to Annamalai University and
the service rendered by the staff in the other Colleges will be counted for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Appeal No.3276 of 2019
purpose of other service benefits.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent University
further submitted that, even though the agreement of employment was for a
period of three years, depending upon the exigency and taking note of the
fact that, the University has been closed, to safeguard the interest of
Professors and their families, the Government has taken a decision to provide
employment to them and only on the basis of the Agreement, the service of
the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has been continued beyond three years.
7. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent University that, it is incorrect to state that, the Appellant's
seniors have not been disturbed. As the services of the Appellant/Writ
Petitioner was required, he was continued in service apart from the fact that,
staff vide S.Nos.53 to 89 in the Annexure to the counter affidavit, have also
been deputed and they have not been called back by the Respondent
University. Even if they are going to be called back, naturally, they have to
be given employment elsewhere, and there is no chance to provide
employment in the Respondent University, as it has already been closed.
Hence, according to the learned counsel for the Respondent University, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Appeal No.3276 of 2019
Writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material documents available on record.
9. It is not in dispute that, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner is one of
the affected persons on account of closure of the Respondent University and
pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.106, Higher Education (I1) Department, dated
28.04.2017, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was deputed in some other College
and is continuing in service there. Merely because, the Appellant's service
period is over, it does not mean that, he can be called back. Depending upon
the exigency in work, his services may be utilized in any other College. That
apart, there is a categorical averment that, staff vide S.Nos.53 to 89 in the
Annexure to the counter Affidavit, who are seniors to the Appellant/Writ
Petitioner have continued in service only by virtue of the said Government
Order.
10. Since, based on the recommendations of the Administrator, the
Government has taken a decision to give new lease of life to
Teachers/Professors, who will otherwise be stranded on account of closure of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Appeal No.3276 of 2019
the University, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner, cannot, as a matter of right
contend that, he has to be reposted in the University on completion of three
years of service. Ultimately, it is the decision of the Administrator and there
are no malafides on the part of the Respondent University in reposting a
person beyond three years, more so, when he has continued in service
pursuant to the Government Order.
11. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order dated
22.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17846 of 2018.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected C.M.P.No.26080 of 2019 is closed.
[S.V.N.,J.] [A.A.N.,J.]
01.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
(aeb)
To:
The Registrar,
Annamalai University
Annamalai Nagar,
Chidambaram-608 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Appeal No.3276 of 2019
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
A.A.NAKKIRAN,J.
(aeb)
Judgment in
WRIT APPEAL No.3276 OF 2019
01.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
