Madras High Court
The Anna University vs Dr.P.Rajesh Prasanna on 24 February, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A(MD)No.78 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.78 of 2025
and
CMP(MD)No.395 of 2025
The Anna University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Chennai. ... Appellant
vs.
Dr.P.Rajesh Prasanna ... Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, against the order dated 01.07.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.8996 of
2021.
For Appellant : Mr. E.V.N.Siva
For Respondent : Mr.T.Aswin Rajasimman
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 01.07.2024
made in W.P(MD)No.8996 of 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as
follows:
The respondent has completed Post Graduation and Ph.D in Civil
Engineering. On 16.05.2007, he was engaged as a Lecturer (Selection
Grade) in the Department of Civil Engineering at Anna University of
Technology, Trichy, on a contract basis. Pursuant to the recruitment
notification for filling up of sanctioned and regular posts of Assistant
Professors in various departments including the Department of Civil
Engineering, the respondent applied to the said post and got selected
and also joined as an Assistant Professor on 17.08.2009 on regular basis
in a sanctioned post. The respondent was appointed as an Estate Officer
of Anna University of Technology, Trichy, for a period of three years
and the respondent took over the charge on 22.07.2019 as an Estate
Officer and continued service as an Assistant Professor cum Estate
Officer. Thereafter, as per the resolution passed by the Syndicate of
Anna University of Technology, Trichy, the petitioner was appointed as
Professor cum Estate Officer, by order dated 23.05.2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.1. Due to his health condition, the respondent submitted
resignation dated 07.10.2011. However, the Registrar of Anna
University of Technology, Trichy, directed him to assist the Monitoring
Committee by letter dated 11.01.2012 and informed him that relieving
order would be issued after the approval of the Syndicate. However, no
relieving order came to be passed and he continued in service as an
Estate Officer in the appellant University. While so, on 29.01.2013, he
was suspended from service, followed by issuance of a charge memo
dated 29.01.2013. An Enquiry Officer was also appointed, who
conducted the enquiry, however, till date, the enquiry report is awaited.
2.2 While so, on 30.09.2020, the petitioner was issued with a
show cause notice with several allegations particularly claiming that he
had been relieved from service on 24.01.2012 itself, however, in collusion
with the then competent authority, he got his name included in the staff
list submitted to the Monitoring Committee and he has no locus standi to
continue in service. So saying, the respondent was asked to show cause
as to why his service should not be terminated. In the meanwhile, the
Government, vide G.O.R.T.No.91, Higher Education (I1) Department
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 14.07.2017 constituted a committee to examine the improper
appointments of both the teaching and non teaching staff made by
erstwhile Anna University of Technology and submit a report. The said
committee had concluded that the appointment of the respondent to the
post of Estate Officer is a non teaching post and therefore, redesignating
him as Professor-cum-Estate Officer is invalid. Based on the said report,
an order dated 09.04.2021, was passed terminating the respondent from
service. Challenging the same, the respondent filed writ petition.
2.3. The Writ Court, finding that the report of the committee
constituted, vide G.O.R.T.No.91 was quashed by the Principal Seat of
this Court in W.P.No.7140 of 2020 etc batch dated 30.01.2024, quashed
the impugned termination order dated 09.04.2021. The relevant passage
of the order passed by the Writ Court is extracted hereunder:
''6. Considering the fact that this Court has already quashed
the report of the committee constituted, vide G.O.R.T.No.91 of the
Higher Education (I1) Department dated 14.07.2017, I am inclined
to extract the relevant portion of the said order. The relevant portion
of the same is extracted as follows:
“(i) to issue orders to all those regular employees
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
who have been working in the erstwhile unamalgamated
Anna Universities of Technology for allotting them either
to the amalgamated Anna University of Technology, other
educational institutions or Government departments,
depending on the vacancy position with continuity service
and all other consequential and attendant benefits.
(ii) While doing so, if any difficulties or
discrepancies are encountered due to any difference in
giving the job title, appropriate orders for re-designation
shall be issued with due pay protection.”
7. In view of the same, I have no hesitation to quash the
impugned order of termination dated 09.04.2021, vide impugned
Memo No.CFL/UCE-BITT/PR26/202 and consequently, the
respondent University is directed to allow the petitioner to perform
his service which he served on the date of suspension with effect from
29.01.2013. However, giving liberty to the respondent University to
proceed with the departmental enquiry based on the awaited enquiry
report in charge memo dated 29.01.2013 in accordance with law, in
case of misconduct, if any. However, it is made clear that the
petitioner is entitled to all monetory benefits and other service
benefits in terms of the prevailing rules and regulations.''
3. The contention made by the learned counsel for the
appellant is two fold. Firstly, the respondent who did not challenge the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
report of the committee constituted under G.O.R.T.No.91, Higher
Education (I1) Department dated 14.07.2017, is not entitled to the benefit
of the common order dated 30.01.2024 made in W.P.No.7140 of 2020 etc
batch. Secondly, pursuant to his resignation letter, when the respondent
was relieved from service on 24.12.2012 itself, the Writ Court ought not
to have ordered monetary benefits from 29.01.2013. On the abovesaid
grounds, interference is sought for.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Though the appellant contended that the respondent is not
entitled to the common order dated 30.01.2024 made in W.P.No.7140 of
2020 etc batch, perusal of the common order dated 30.01.2024 made in
W.P.No.7140 of 2020 etc batch, shows that it is not a judgment in
personam, whereas, it is a judgment in rem applicable to all those
regular employees who have been working in the erstwhile
unamalgamated Anna Universities of Technology. Admittedly, the
respondent was a regular employee of Anna University of Technology,
Trichy, and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of the abovesaid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
common order. It is also a well settled principle that individuals are not
required to litigate separately for the same relief which was already
granted to similarly situated individuals. In the present case, the
respondent being a similarly placed employee, he is entitled to the
benefit of the said common order.
6. As regards the other contention that pursuant to his
resignation letter, when the respondent was relieved from service on
24.12.2012 itself, the Writ Court ought not to have ordered monetary
benefits from 29.01.2013, no materials have been placed before this
Court to prove that relieving order dated 24.12.2012 was served on the
respondent and consequently, monetary benefits were settled to him.
Despite the charge memo was issued on 29.01.2013 and enquiry was
conducted, till date, the enquiry report is awaited. Therefore, there is no
infirmity in the direction of the Writ Court ordering to grant monetary
benefits to the respondent from 29.01.2013. While granting such
direction, the Writ Court has also granted liberty to the appellant
University to proceed with the departmental enquiry on the charge
memo dated 29.01.2013, in case of misconduct if any. Keeping the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
disciplinary proceedings which were initiated on 29.01.2013, in the
enquiry stage till date, itself shows the mala fide intention on the part of
the appellant.
7. Be that as it may, we concur with the order passed by the
Writ Court. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. The
appellant shall pay all the monetary benefits as ordered by the Writ
Court to the respondent within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
[J.N.B, J.] [S.S.Y, J.]
24.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
The Registrar,
Anna University,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
DATED : 24.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
