SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Mad) 259

1990 1 MLJ 88
Venkataswami, J.
N. Radhakrishnan
Versus
The Registrar, University Of Madras And Anr.
Decided on : 12/4/1989
.

Power to appoint also carries in itself power to reappoint.

Headnote:Madras University Act, 1923-Section 19 (g)-Power given for appointment itself holds the power of reappointment-Method of reappointment or re-employment is different from the method of appointment.

       

ORDER

Venkataswami, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is preferred against an order of Bakthavatsalam, J. in W.P.No. 8807 of 1988 dated 1.12.88 declining to issue a writ certiorarified mandamus to quash the resolution of the Syndicate, Madras University, dated 30.6.1988 and confirmed again in its resolution dated 23.7.1988. Brief facts relating to the matter are as under.

2. The Second respondent after serving the University for nearly 30 years was to retire on 30.6.1988. On 9.5.1988, the second respondent requested the Vice Chancellor of the University to grant him extension for two or three years to enable him to complete his Research work in Indian Private International Law and Ancient Hindu Jurisprudence which are pending completion. Before the said request was placed before the Syndicate and considered by it, the first respondent by communication dated 29.6.1988 informed the appellant as follows:

Sub - In-charge for the department of Legal Studies, University of Madras, Madras - Reg.

I am, by direction, to inform you that you are put as Head-in-charge of the Department of Legal Studies, University of Madras, Madras-5, in the place of Thiru. S. Rama Rao, who will be retiring on the afternoon of 30.6.1988.

You are requested to take charge of all the Departmental papers and articles from Thiru T.S. Rama Rao, Head, Department of Legal Studies.

The second respondent by his letter dated 30.6.1988 addressed to the first respondent stated as follows:

Sub: Charges handing over-Reg.

Ref: Your Letter No. D1 TE/88/1851

dated 29.6.1988.

With reference to your letter cited above, I am handing over charge of the department of Legal studies to Thiru N. Radhakrishnan, Reader in the Department.

By letter dated 30.6.1988, the appellant informed the Registrar of Madras University as follows:

Sub: Taking over of charges as Head in charge of Legal Studies Department - Reg.

Ref: Your letter D.1/TE/88/1851, dt 29.6.1988 With reference to your letter cited above, I am taking over charge of the department of Legal Studies from Prof. T.S. Rama Rao, Head of the Department of Legal Studies.

Subsequently, in its meeting held on 23.7.1988, the Syndicate seems to have considered the same subject again, resolved as follows:

Resolved that the action taken on the minutes of the meeting of the Syndicate held on 30.6.1988 be rectified,

Resolved Also that the following resolutions of the previous meeting of the Syndicate be confirmed as follows:

Resolved that Prof. T.S. Rama Rao be permitted to retire from the services of the University with effect from 30.6.1988

Resolved Also he be re-employed until further orders.

It is under these circumstances, the appellant has filed W.P.No. 8807 of 1988, challenging the resolution of the Syndicate re-employing the second respondent until further order.

3. Before the learned Judge, the resolution was challenged contending that the Syndicate had no power to re-appoint the second respondent, as neither the Madras University Act, 1923 nor the statutes, regulations framed under the Act would enable the Syndicate to re-appoint the Professor after retirement. It was contended before the learned Judge that the resolution re-employing the second respondent violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. If at all a Professor can be reemployed after retirement, it can be as per law 3-A under Chapter IX which speaks of Emeritus Professors. Inasmuch as that provision has not been invoked by the Syndicate to re-employ the second respondent, the resolution or the Syndicate cannot be sustained under any other provisions of the Laws of the University.

4. In answer to the above contentions, it was argued on behalf of the University before the Learned Judge that the Laws of the University clearly support the resolution impugned in the writ petition. The contention to the contrary, according to the University's counsel was unsustainable. In support of his argument, the learned Counsel for the University pointed out the relevant pr




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top