Madras High Court
Dr.V.Latha vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 July, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.10930 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 17.07.2025
Pronounced On : 25.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) No.10930 of 2017
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8363 & 8364 of 2017
Dr.V.Latha,
Assistant Professor,
Department of Sculpture,
The Tamil University,
Thanjavur – 10. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Tamil Development and Information,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2. University Grants Commission
Rep. by its Secretary,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi – 110 002.
3. The Vice Chancellor,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur – 10.
4. The Tamil University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Thanjavur – 10.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:52 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.10930 of 2017
5. Dr.B.Sheela,
Professor,
Department of Sculpture,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur – 10. ... Respondents
PRAYER in W.P.:
To issue a writ of Declaration, to declare the Advertisement No.
01/2016 on the file of the fourth respondent dated 27.04.2017 in so far as
educational qualification prescribed for the post of Professor in
Department of Sculpture is concerned and the consequential appointment
of the fifth respondent in the post of Professor in the Department of
Sculpture as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the fourth
respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of Professor in the
Department of Sculpture at the fourth respondent University within the
time period stipulated by this Court and pass any further or other orders
as this Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the
case and thus render justice.
PRAYER in W.M.P.(MD)No.8363 of 2017 :
To pass an order of injunction restraining the fifth respondent from
discharging the duty in the post of Professor in the Department of
Sculpture at the fourth respondent University pending disposal of the
Writ Petition.
PRAYER in W.M.P.(MD)No.8364 of 2017 :
To pass an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent
No.4 from disbursing salary to the fifth respondent in the post of
Professor Sculpture Department at the 4th respondent pending disposal of
the writ petition.
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:52 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.10930 of 2017
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Rithik Sushil
for M/s.Lajapathi Roy Associates
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader for R1-3
: Mr. Sachin Rahul
for M/s.Arulvadivel Associates for R4
: Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan for R5
JUDGMENT
Heard
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a
declaration that Advertisement No.01/2016 dated 27.04.2016 issued by
the fourth respondent - Tamil University, Thanjavur, is illegal insofar as
it prescribes the educational qualification for the post of Professor in the
Department of Sculpture, and further challenges the consequential
appointment of the fifth respondent to the said post. The petitioner also
seeks a direction to appoint her to the post of Professor in the
Department of Sculpture.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:52 pm )
3. The case of the petitioner is that she is an Assistant Professor in
the Department of Sculpture and holds a Ph.D. in Sculpture. According
to her, history is not the relevant subject for the appointment to and the
educational qualification prescribed the post of Professor in Department
of Sculpture is in violation of contrary to Clause 4.1.0 of the University
Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2010, which mandates a Ph.D.
in the "concerned / allied / relevant discipline". It is contended that
History is neither concerned nor allied to Sculpture and therefore, the
fifth respondent, holding a Ph.D. in History, was ineligible. The
petitioner further contends that she ought to have been appointed as she
holds the precise subject qualification and is already in service in the
Department.
4. The qualification prescribed in the impugned advertisement
reads as follows: 1. Post Graduate Degree in History with not less than
55% marks. 2. Doctorate in History; and 3. Other qualifications
prescribed by UGC. The petitioner, while challenging the notification for
the post of Professor in Sculpture, draws a comparative reference to the
qualification stipulated for the post of Professor in Theatre Arts/Drama in
the very same advertisement. In that case, the essential qualification was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:52 pm )
expressly stated as Ph.D. in Theatre Arts/Drama. It is submitted that this
differential treatment reveals an inconsistency: while a specific doctorate
in the exact discipline is mandated for Theatre Arts/Drama, a general
Ph.D. in History has been prescribed for the highly specialised post in
Sculpture. According to the petitioner, this inconsistency amounts to a
deliberate dilution of academic standards and is contrary to Clause 4.1.0
of the UGC Regulations, which mandates that the candidate must possess
a doctoral qualification in the “concerned / allied / relevant” discipline.
The petitioner argues that prescribing a Ph.D. in History, without
requiring specific expertise in Sculpture, undermines the integrity of
academic appointments in a specialised field.
5. The fourth respondent Tamil University has justified prescribing
Ph.D. in History as the essential qualification for the post of Professor in
the Department of Sculpture. It is stated that Sculpture, in the academic
structure of the University, is not treated as a wholly distinct or isolated
subject, but as a sub-discipline of History, which encompasses allied
subjects such as Art History, Archaeology, and Material Culture. The
University further relies on its own academic classification, as evidenced
by the Tamil Prospectus placed on record which expressly recognizes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:52 pm )
Ph.D. in History as the main discipline, under which Sculpture is
categorized as a specialized stream. The University also submits that this
classification is consistent with Clause 4.1.0 of the UGC Regulations,
2010, which permits appointment of Professors with Ph.D. in the
concerned / allied / relevant discipline, as interpreted by the subject
experts and approved by the Selection Committee.
6. It is contended that the fifth respondent, holding a Ph.D. in
History, had a strong research record and fulfilled the eligibility norms.
As per the Academic Performance Assessment (APA) methodology, the
fifth respondent scored, well above the minimum required score of 400.
In contrast, the petitioner secured only 258 points, as per records
submitted by the respondent University and thus failed to meet the
eligibility criteria irrespective of her subject qualification.
7. The fifth respondent has also filed a counter affidavit stating
that she possesses all required qualifications and was selected on merit
by a duly constituted Selection Committee. She has publications,
experience, and a doctoral degree relevant to the field. She further asserts
that the petitioner, having participated in the selection process, is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:52 pm )
estopped from challenging the process post-facto.
8. Clause 4.1.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, does not define
"concerned / allied / relevant discipline" narrowly. It permits
Universities, in the exercise of their academic autonomy, to define and
approve disciplines, subject to transparency and absence of mala fides.
The decision of Tamil University to treat History as the qualifying
discipline is supported by the advertisement and cannot be said to be
arbitrary. It is also not disputed that the fifth respondent had domain-
specific publications and was academically suited for the Department of
Sculpture.
9. The respondents relied on W.A.(MD)No. 1444 of 2018, where
it has been held that once qualifications are clearly notified and not
contemporaneously challenged, candidates are estopped from raising
objections post-selection. The present case thus turns not on arbitrary
exclusion, but on whether the prescription of Ph.D. in History falls
within the bounds of UGC norms and academic autonomy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:52 pm )
10. The petitioner, having applied pursuant to the advertisement
with full knowledge of the eligibility norms, and having failed to secure
the qualifying APA score, cannot now turn around and challenge the
selection criteria itself. The principle of estoppel by conduct applies
squarely.
11. In light of the above, this Court finds no illegality or
arbitrariness either in the prescription of qualification or in the
appointment of the fifth respondent. The petitioner's claim is based more
on perceived entitlement rather than legal infirmity. The discretion
exercised by the University in interpreting UGC norms is not shown to
be irrational or violative of any binding regulation.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
25.07.2025
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
LS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:52 pm )
To
1. The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Tamil Development and Information,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2. University Grants Commission
Rep. by its Secretary,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi – 110 002.
3. The Vice Chancellor,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur – 10.
4. The Tamil University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Thanjavur – 10.
5. Dr.B.Sheela,
Professor,
Department of Sculpture,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur – 10.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:52 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
LS
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
25.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 02:29:52 pm )
