Madras High Court
The Registrar vs S.Sornam on 24 November, 2023
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
and C.M.P. (MD) Nos.2522, 2524, 2525, 2527, 2529, 2535, 2539, 2542,
2544, 2545, 2548, 2550, 2552, 2553, 2557, 2559, 2563, 2566, 3353 and
6330 of 2023
The Registrar,
Alagappa University,
Karaikudi – 630 003,
Sivagangai District. ... Appellant/Respondent in all
the Writ Appeals
-Vs.-
S.Sornam ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.193 of 2022
M.Murugesan ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.194 of 2022
T.Deepa ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.195 of 2022
T.D.Kamini ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.196 of 2022
P.Jeyanthi ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.197 of 2022
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
K.Sumathi ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.198 of 2022
P.Manickam ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.199 of 2022
S.Kavipriya ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.200 of 2022
K.Subramanian ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.201 of 2022
K.R.Jeya ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.202 of 2022
P.Malarvizhi ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.203 of 2022
M.Hemalatha ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.204 of 2022
M.Umamaheswari ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.205 of 2022
D.Ramesh Babu ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.206 of 2022
P.Chinniah ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.207 of 2022
P.Muthuselvi ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.208 of 2022
G.Selvi ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.209 of 2022
SP.Geetha ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.210 of 2022
2/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
Dr.S.Narayanan ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.295 of 2022
B.Lakshmi ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.739 of 2022
COMMON PRAYER:- Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters
Patent Act, to set aside the common order dated 09.03.2022, 11.03.2022
and 08.11.2022 made in W.P.(MD)Nos.21240, 22944, 20745, 20741,
20738, 20744, 19430, 20746, 20983, 20739, 21242, 20740, 20742,
20743, 19432, 21241, 21239, 19431,19727 of 2018 and 342 of 2019 on
the file of this Court.
For Appellant in all the : Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy
Writ Appeals
For Respondent : Mr.M.E.Ilango
in W.A.(MD) Nos.193, 195 to
210, 295 & 739 of 2023
Mr.Anwar Sameem
in W.A.(MD) No.194 of 2023
****
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The present Writ Appeals are filed calling upon to ascertain the
correctness of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in batch of
Writ Petitions in order dated 09.03.2022, 11.03.2022 and 08.11.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
2. The respondents in the Writ Appeals were appointed in
various cadres as administrative staff in the appellant University. After
serving for long years in the University, they have submitted
representations to the Grievance Committee to grant upgradation,
considering their length of services and by considering their workload
and other aspects. The Grievance Committee in its proceedings dated
29.05.2018, considered the grievances of the administrative staff of the
University and passed a resolution, recommending for upgrandation of
the staff members to the next higher category.
3. Admittedly, the resolution passed by the Grievance
Committee was not placed before the Finance Committee and it was
directly placed before the Syndicate for passing the orders. The Syndicate
passed an order on 30.05.2018, approving the Minitues of the Grievance
Committee for Administrative Staff held on 29th May, 2018. Pursuant to
the resolution passed by the Syndicate, the respondents staff were
upgraded to the higher posts and accordingly their pay band was revised.
4. After upgrading the administrative staff, pursuant to the
resolution passed by the Syndicate, the decision taken was reversed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
based on the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.110, Higher
Education (K1) Department, dated 12.06.2018, wherein the Government
in Sub-Clause (vi) and (vii) issued orders as under:-
“vi) Additional expenditure incurred on account of
granting higher pay scales and other emoluments, wrong pay
fixation etc., in violation of Government norms be disallowed
and the Universities be penalized by deducting from the Block
Grant an amount equal to the amount so disallowed.
vii) Posts sanctioned by the Syndicate without prior
scrutiny by the Finance Committee be penalized by reducing
future grants and the expenditure on that account for any
Grants be disallowed.”
Thereafter, it was placed before the Finance Committee and the
Committee rejected the recommendations of the Grievance Committee on
03.08.2018, which was under challenge by the staff members in the writ
proceedings. Consequently, the Syndicate passed a resolution on the
same day recalling the upgradation resolution dated 30.05.2018. Thus,
the respondents instituted writ proceedings challenging the orders.
5. Learned Single Judge considered the issues and made a
finding that the recommendations of the Finance Committee was not
placed before the Syndicate before passing the resolution granting
upgradation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
6. The writ petitioners contended that the Government Order is
inapplicable in view of the fact that it was issued after passing resolution
by the Syndicate granting upgradation and therefore, the Government
Order do not have any retrospective application to nullify the
upgradation granted pursuant to the resolution of the Syndicate.
7. Learned Single Judge further considered the fact that the
Finance Department's opinion was not obtained prior to the upgradation
and a mistake was committed by the University / appellant. However, the
upgradation with the monetary benefit would be megre and would not
cause any financial difficulties to the University.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the
procedure adopted by the Syndicate without inviting the recommendation
of the Finance Committee is directly in violation of Section 33(8) of
Alagappa University Act.
9. Learned counsel drew our attention with reference to the
mandatory requirements contemplated under Section 33(8) of the
Alagappa University Act, which stipulates that the Financial Committee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
shall “(b) make recommendation to the Syndicate on everty proposal
involving investment or expenditure for which no provision has been
made in the annual financial estimates or which involves expenditure in
excess of the amount provided for in the annual financial estimates.” and
“(d) make recommendation to the Syndicate on all matters relating to the
finance of the University;”
10. Relying on the above provisions, the learned counsel for
the appellant reiterated that the decision was taken in a hurried manner
and without obtaining recommendation form the Finance Committee and
therefore, the subsequent rejection by the Finance Committee is valid and
consequently, the Writ Petitions are to be rejected since the findings
made by the learned Single Judge is running counter to the statutory
provisions.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the said
contentions by stating that the respondents are not at fault. They have
submitted their representations to redress their grievances, which was
rightly considered by the Grievance Committee and a resolution was
passed recommending for upgradation. Such resolution passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
Grievance Committee was accepted by the Syndicate and a resolution
was passed and consequently upgradation was granted and all the staff
members are working in the upgraded posts. The Government Order
passed subsequently would not have the effect of nullifying the
resolution passed prior to the passing of the Government Order and
therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge is in accordance with
law and there is no infirmity.
12. It is further contended that Section 33(8) provides power to
the Finance Committee to give recommendation to the decision making
authority i.e., the Syndicate, which is not disputed. Thus, the decision
taken by the competent authority in the absence of recommendation
cannot be termed as illegal.
13. In support, the learned counsel for the respondents relied
on the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18267 of 2012
dated 21.02.2018, in the matter of K.Prema and others v. Tamil Nadu
Dr.M.G.R. University, wherein the Writ Court made the following
observations:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
“7. ... It is not in dispute that these three petitioners on the date
of their upgradation had all the qualifications to be promoted to
Personal Secretary Grade II 19.01.2007, hence while reviewing
the decision of the University regarding upgradation, their such
upgradation was protected. But it cannot be last sight that
upgradation and promotion are two different concepts in
service jurisprudence. For promotion a person moves from a
post of lower grade to post of higher grade carrying higher
responsibility. To accord promotion there must be a post
available in the promotional grade /cadre to promote a persons
from the feeder grade/ cadre. Where as in upgradation, there is
no requirement of sanctioned posts. On promotion a vacancy
is created in the feeder cadre but on upgradation no such
vacancy is created as lower post is upgraded by exhaustation of
the said post. Soon after the upgraded person vacate the post
by superannuation or promotion, the post is reverted back to
the lower cadre from which he was upgraded. Therefore, the
objection of the University on the ground that the upgradation
made beyond the sanctioned strength as such upgradation was
contrary to law appears to this Court to be without any rational
and also not in consonance to the principle of upgradation of a
post. Hence, the upgradation of the petitioners question on that
ground was misconceived. Now coming to the question their
upgradation without approval of the Government, this Court is
of the view no Rule or regulation was placed before this Court
that respondent University cannot taken such decision in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
absence of such approval of the Government or the Finance
Committee. ...”
14. However, we do not find any relevance since the statutory
provisions applicable for taking a decision by the Syndicate had not been
adjudicated in the said judgment and in the present case the learned
counsel for the appellant solicit our attention with reference to the
mandatory procedures to be followed by the Syndicate before taking a
final decision. Since the said procedure contemplated under the Statute
has not been placed before the learned Single Judge in Dr.M.G.R.
University’s case, we are not inclined to rely upon the said order for the
purpose of considering the claim of the respondents.
15. The purpose and object of the provisions in the Statute is to
be followed by the decision making authority. Check and balances in a
Statute and Rules are provided for efficient public administration. Thus,
procedural violations, if goes to root of the matter, then the same cannot
be viewed lightly. Such procedures are contemplated with an object to
ensure that the decisions are taken in a transparent and democratic
manner and to protect the financial interest of public administration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondents that the power of the Finance Committee is only to make a
recommendation to the Syndicate, which would not invalidate the
decision of the Syndicate is unacceptable.
16. Section 33(8) of the Allagppa University Act,
unabmiquously stipulates that the Finance Committee shall make
recommendations on every proposals involving investment or
expenditure, for which, no provision has been made in the annual budget.
It further states that the Finance Committee shall make recommendations
to the Syndicate on all matters relating to the finance of the University.
Therefore, the recommendations of the finance Committee is mandatory
and to be obtained by the Syndicate before taking any decision on any
subject touching on finance.
17. Holistic reading of Section 33(8) of the Alagappa
University Act would indicate that the Power of the Finance Committee
is to recommend or not to recommend, but the decision making power
remains vested with the Syndicate, which is not in dispute between the
parties. However, the decision making process, if contemplated under the
Statue, it is to be followed scrupulously to ensure that the decision taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
is in accordance with the provisions of the Statute in force. Therefore, we
are of the opinion that the decision taken by the Syndicate without
inviting the report of the Finance Committee is improper and not in
violation of Section 33(8) of Alagappa University Act.
18. Though the Government Order referred in the Writ Appeals
i.e., G.O.Ms.No.110, dated 12.06.2018, is inapplicable since the
Syndicate passed a resolution before the Government Order, we are of
the considered opinion that the said order is clarificatory in nature and
issued in consonance with Section 33(8) of the Alagappa University Act.
The Government Order reiterates the importance of the recommendations
of the Finance Committee for taking final decision by the Syndicate and
therefore, the said ground is of no assistance to the respondents.
19. Reading of the proceedings issued by the Syndicate and the
subsequent decision of the Finance Committee rejecting the claim of
upgradation are made without following the mandatory procedures as
contemplated under Section 33(8) of Alagappa University Act and
therefore, the decisions are perverse and not taken in accordance with
law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
20. The manner in which resolution Nos.171 and 172 were
passed are not in accordance with the Statute and therefore, we are
convinced that the decisions are to be revisited by placing the Finance
Committee’s recommendation and the resolution of the Grievance
Committee before the Syndicate for taking a fresh decision.
21. In view of the facts and circumstances, both the resolutions
passed by the Syndicate in Nos.171 and 172, dated 30.08.2018 and
03.06.2018, respectively are set aside and the appellant is directred to
call for the files relating to the Finance Committee’s report and other
relevant documents and take a fresh decision on merits and in accordance
with law, by scrupulously following the procedures as contemplated
under the Act as well the Government Orders in force.
22. It is placed before us that during the pendency of the Writ
Appeals Mr.Manickam, Ms.Geetha, Ms.Lakshmi, Mr.Chinniah and
K.Subramanian, respondent in W.A.(MD) Nos.199, 210, 739, 207 and
201 of 2022 respectively were regularly promoted and in the regular
vacancies. These facts are also to be taken into consideration by the
Syndicate while taking fresh decision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
23. In fine, the order of the learned Single Judge dated
09.03.2022, 11.03.2022 and 08.11.2022, passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.21240,
22944, 20745, 20741, 20738, 20744, 19430, 20746, 20983, 20739,
21242, 20740, 20742, 20743, 19432, 21241, 21239, 19431,19727 of
2018 and 342 of 2019 are set aside and the Writ Appeals are allowed
with the above directions. The appellant University is directed to
complete the entire exercise within a period of four months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected
Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[S.M.S.J.,] & [V.L.N.J.,]
NCC :Yes/No 24.11.2023
Index :Yes/No
SJ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
SJ
W.A.(MD) Nos.193 to 210, 295 and 739 of 2023
24.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
