Ms.R.Gokila vs The Registrar
2023 Latest Caselaw 9185 Mad

                                                                                     W.P.No.22343 of 2023


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 28.07.2023

                                                         CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                                W.P.No.22343 of 2023 and
                                             W.M.P.Nos.21715 & 21716 of 2023

                     Ms.R.Gokila                                            ... Petitioner
                                                          Versus
                     The Registrar,
                     Bharathiar University,
                     Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu – 641 046.                      ... Respondent

                     PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                     to issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the Nature of Writ of Certiorarified
                     Mandamus calling for the records of the Notification No.E9/321/2023-3
                     dated 18.07.2023 issued by the respondent and consequently to regularize
                     the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Legal advisor.

                                  For Petitioner   :       Mr.M.Ashwin Kumar

                                  For Respondent :         Mr.K.Shakespeare

                                                          *****
                                                         ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the

Notification No.E9/321/2023-3, dated 18.07.2023 issued by the respondent

and consequently to regularize the appointment of the petitioner to the post

of Legal advisor.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22343 of 2023

2.The challenge has been made mainly on the ground that the

petitioner was selected as Legal Assistant on contract basis on 21.04.2010.

Initial contract period is for one year, subsequently, the same has been

renewed periodically. On completion of ten years of service, the petitioner

has given several representations to consider for regularization, however, the

same have not been considered. Thereafter, the petitioner was selected and

appointed as Legal Advisor on contract basis, vide proceedings

No.E9/2019/24809-8, dated 28.01.2020. Subsequently, the service of the

petitioner has been extended for a period of two years and now, the contract

of the petitioner expires on 31.07.2023. Since the petitioner has already

been appointed on the proper selection process, her appointment cannot be

disturbed bringing other temporary or ad hoc post. Hence, the impugned,

dated 18.07.2023 has been challenged and to regularize the petitioner to the

post of Legal Advisor.

3.It is relevant to note that the interview has been scheduled on

31.07.2023 for the post of Legal Advisor (Full Time) on consolidated pay.

It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has been appointed only as Legal

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22343 of 2023

Advisor on a contract basis from 2010. The contract has been extended

lastly from 28.05.2023 to 31.07.2023 vide proceedings No.E9/321/2022-5,

dated 13.07.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

submitted that once the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis, she

cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and can be replaced only by

another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular

procedure prescribed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for

the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of “Manish Gupta and another Versus President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti

and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 485” and produced the

Chapter XVII of Bharathiyar University. According to the learned counsel

for the petitioner, once the petitioner has been appointed on ad hoc basis,

she cannot be replaced by way of another appointment.

4.Heard the submissions of Mr.M.Ashwin Kumar, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Mr.K.Shakespeare, learned counsel for the respondent

and perused the entire materials.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22343 of 2023

5.The impugned notification, dated 18.07.2023 has been issued for

Walk-In-Interview inviting eligible candidates for the post of Legal Advisor

(Full Time) on consolidated pay. It is not disputed that originally, the

petitioner was appointed as Legal Assistant on contract basis in the year

2010. The contract lastly renewed on 13.07.2023 for a period from

28.05.2023 to 31.07.2023, which is also not disputed. The Chapter XVII of

Statue of Bharathiyar University makes very clear that it shall be competent

for the Syndicate to appoint a Legal Advisor/Standing Counsel for the

University for such period on such terms as it may decide to perform such

duties as it may fix from time or time. Therefore, the Legal Advisor post is

not a permanent one in the University and only the syndicate can avail the

legal services for such period on terms. Admittedly, the petitioner is only

appointed as Legal Advisor for a period of one year on contract basis and

now, her contract expires on 31.07.2023. When the petitioner has

consciously entered into the contract with the University and the period of

contract expires on 31.07.2023, she cannot claim any better right to contend

that she has been appointed in a sanctioned post in the university.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22343 of 2023

6.I am afraid of such contention that the Legal Advisor post is a

sanctioned post in the University. The Legal Advisor or Standing Counsel is

just for engaging a Counsel for proper legal advice to the University. When

the petitioner has taken such position on the basis of contract and she is also

aware of the period of contract, now she cannot challenge the notification

issued for selecting the Legal Advisor (Full Time) on Consolidated pay.

7.In the decision (cited supra) relied on by the learned counsel for

the petitioner, it is held that 'ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by

another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another

candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure

prescribed'. It is relevant to note that the above decision pertains to the

appointment of Teachers in the regular post in the college. Whereas the

given case pertains to appointment of Legal Advisor that too based on

contract basis.

8.In such view of the matter, the petitioner has no legal right to

challenge the impugned notification. Hence, I do not find any merits in this

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22343 of 2023

Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed and,

is dismissed. If the petitioner is inclined to participate in the Walk-In-

Interview, she is given liberty to participate in the same and the respondent

shall permit the petitioner to attend the interview. Consequently, the

connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

28.07.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

vv2

To

The Registrar, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu – 641 046.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22343 of 2023

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

vv2

W.P.No.22343 of 2023

28.07.2023

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