The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of the Director of I.I.T.(M) must be made by the Council as required under the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961, and that the appointment by a smaller body not authorized to make the appointment was not in accordance with the law.

1. Heard the arguments of Dr. E. Muralidharan, the petitioner appearing in person; Mr. K.M. Venugopal, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent Union of India; Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. Karthik Mukundan for respondents 2 and 4 and Mr. R. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and perused the records.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the authority of the second respondent to hold the post of the Director of Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (for short, I.I.T.(M)). When the matter came up for admission, it was placed before a Division Bench treating it as a public interest litigation. However, the Division Bench, by its order dated 112. 2007, observed as follows:-

As the matter relates to appointment of the Director of I.I.T. Madras, it cannot be termed to be Public Interest Litigation. However, it is open for the petitioner to confine the prayer for issuance of a writ of quo warranto as an adversary litigation.

Let the matter be placed as a general writ petition before appropriate Court after necessary orders of the Honble the Chief Justice".

3. Therefore, the matter was placed before the Single Bench. The Single Bench, by an order dated 18. 2008, directed that the appointment of the second respondent will be subject to the result of the writ petition. Subsequently, the matter was taken up for final hearing. This Court by an order dated 29. 2008 dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable in the light of the petitioner having moved the Honourable Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

4. As against the same, the petitioner moved a writ appeal being W.A.No.1242 of 2008. The matter came up before the Division Bench presided by A.K. Ganguly, C.J. (as he then was) and the writ appeal was allowed by a judgment dated 211. 2008. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said judgment reads as follows:-

13. Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the bar of res judicata does not operate in this case. The reasoning discussed in the aforesaid cases should apply herein a reverse situation namely, where a petition under Article 32, dismissed as withdrawn without any discussion on the merits of the case, that cannot bar the petitioners access to a writ court under Article 226.

14. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration on merits before K. Chandru, J. Since the matter is pending in this Court for some time, we hope and expect that the matter is disposed of by the learned Judge as early as possible, but preferably within a period of two months from date. We make it clear that we have not made any pronouncements on the merits of the case. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. The interim order, which was granted during the pendency of the writ petition, that the holding of office by the Director of I.I.T. viz., the fourth respondent herein, will abide by the result of the writ petition, continues. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed."

5. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the I.I.T.(M) submitted that they intend to prefer a SLP against the order of the Division Bench, no such proof was forthcoming. Further, since the Division Bench had also fixed a time limit for disposal of the writ petition, parties were directed to address arguments on the merits of the case, which they were kind enough to do.

6. The petitioner appearing in person submitted that the I.I.T.(M) is governed by the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 (for short, the IT Act). Section 17(1) of the IT Act provides that a Director of each Institute will be appointed by the Council with the prior approval of the Visitor. Therefore, he submitted that there was neither an appointment by the Council nor was there a proper