Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. CHANDRU, J.
Dr. R.M. Thirumaran & Others
Versus
The Administrator General & Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu Administrator & Others
W.P. Nos. 6955 to 6958, 6960 & 6961 of 2009 & 12440 of 2010 & connected Miscellaneous Petitions
Decided on: 30-01-2013
Regularization - Lecturer Services - Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, Rules 11, 15, 16, UGC guidelines - The court discussed the issue of regularization of lecturer services in private colleges under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, and UGC guidelines. It emphasized the necessity of appointments being made through regular recruitment process and the importance of adhering to the qualification requirements and selection procedures prescribed by the Act and UGC guidelines. The court also highlighted the limitations on regularization and the need for compliance with statutory recruitment rules and constitutional provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought regularization of their services as lecturers in various departments of a college. The appointments were initially made for evening classes, and the petitioners sent representations citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka -vs- Umadevi, which they believed enabled the management to regularize their services.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing that regularization is not a matter of right unless appointments are made through regular recruitment process. It highlighted the necessity of compliance with the qualification requirements and selection procedures prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, and UGC guidelines.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to regularization of their services as lecturers in the college without going through the regular recruitment process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that regularization is not a matter of right and emphasized the importance of appointments being made through regular recruitment process as prescribed by the Act and UGC guidelines. It highlighted the limitations on regularization and the need for compliance with statutory recruitment rules and constitutional provisions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions, emphasizing the necessity of appointments being made through regular recruitment process and the importance of adhering to the qualification requirements and selection procedures prescribed by the Act and UGC guidelines. It highlighted the limitations on regularization and the need for compliance with statutory recruitment rules and constitutional provisions.
1. All these Writ Petitions came to be listed on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice vide order dated 29.1.2013. The issue raised in all these Writ Petitions is almost identical.
2. In W.P.No.6955 of 2009, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as a Lecturer in Department of Commerce in the Pachaiyappas College, Chennai-30 w.e.f.11.8.1992 the date on which he joined the college in terms of paragraph 53 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka -vs- Umadevi reported in 2006 (4) SCC page 1.The contention of the petitioner was that he was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Commerce on 11.8.1992. The order of appointment as found in page 1 of the typed set shows that the appointment was made by the Principal of the College in respect of running of the evening classes and it also stated that he had appointed the Teachers who are working from the date mentioned therein. Subsequently, the petitioner who was initially appointed as part-time Lecturer was made as full time Lecturer in Commerce on consolidated pay. The petitioner sent a representation on 27.2.2009 to the respondents including the Trust stating that paragraph 53 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka -vs- Umadevi enables the management from regularizing the service of Teachers who have put in long number of years of service and they are duty bound to regularize the services in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
3. In W.P.No.6956 of 2009, the petitioner made a similar claim of directing the respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioner as a Lecturer in Department of Commerce in the Pachaiyappas College, Chennai-30 w.e.f.11.10.2004 the date of his joining the college, in terms of the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in paragraph 53 of the judgment rendered in State of Karnataka -vs- Umadevi reported in 2006 (4) SCC page 1. He also sent an identical representation as set out in the earlier Writ Petition.
4. In W.P.No.6957 of 2009, the petitioner claims that he was also appointed as Guest Lecturer in the Department of Commerce for the Evening Classes by the order dated 7.10.1997 by the Principal of the College. His appointment came to be terminated at the end of the academic year and subsequently he was appointed for the successive academic years. He also sent an identical representation as set out in the earlier Writ Petition.
5. In W.P.NO.6958 of 2009, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer by the Secretary of the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board by order dated 9.12.2003. It is stated that the appointment was for the Evening College and it was indicated that it will not confer any right for absorption in the regular vacancy of the Day College, which is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and the Rules framed there-under. Subsequently, the petitioner also sent an identical representation dated 27.2.2009 as set out earlier.
6. In W.P.No.6960 of 2009, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Tamil Department in the evening classes. He was paid a consolidated salary. Subsequently, those Guest Lecturers including the petitioner were appointed as a Full time Lecturer by getting permission from the then Administrator General and Official Trustee as well as the recommendation made by the Head of the Department and the Members of the College Committee. The appointment order was signed by the Principal in-charge. It is indicated that the appointment will not confer any right to continue in service from the academic years 2009-2010 or for any regular appointment in the Day College. He also sent a representation dated 27.2.2009 on similar lines as set out above in respect of the other Writ Petitions.
7. In W.P.No.6961 of 2009, the petitioner was appointed as Full Time Lecturer in Corporate Secretary-ship in the College on consolidated pay. His appointment was mad
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
