1. It was reported in the media that one Ms. Nirmala Devi, an Assistant Professor working in the 5th respondent College, attempted to lure four girl students into giving sexual favours in return for academic and financial benefits. In this regard, a criminal case was registered followed by the arrest of the said Nirmala Devi. The case has since been handed over to CBCID. The 7th respondent herein is presently in-charge of the investigation. Since there were references to Madurai Kamaraj University in the conversation said to have taken place between the said Nirmala Devi and the students in question, the first respondent thought it important to hold an enquiry into the matter. In his capacity as the Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University to which the 5th respondent College is affiliated, he directed that a high powered enquiry be conducted by the 6th respondent herein. The 6th respondent herein had worked as Collector of composite Ramnad District and held several senior positions before retiring in the cadre of Chief Secretary to Government. He had also functioned as member of Central Administrative Tribunal after his retirement. The said High Powered Enquiry Committee has since taken up the work in right earnest. Two women Professors have also been appointed to assist the 6th respondent in the discharge of his functions.

2. At this stage, the petitioner has moved this Court by filing this writ petition. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of declaration to declare the appointment of the 6th respondent by the first respondent as null and void. Certain consequential directions have also been sought against the 4th respondent University.

3. Heard Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the University Grants Commission (Prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') issued by the 3rd respondent Commission. The said Regulations have been issued to prevent and prohibit the sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions. The said Regulations fix certain responsibilities on the higher educational institutions. As per Clause 2(h), higher education institution mean a University within the meaning of clause (j) of section 2, a college within the meaning of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12 A and an institution deemed to be a University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956).

5. Supportive measures as well as grievance redressal mechanisms have also been put in place. The Regulations envisage constitution of Internal Complaints committee. The process for making complaint and conducting enquiry have also been laid down. If the mandate set out in the Regulations is not complied with, certain consequences ensue. It can go as far as authorizing the third respondent Commission to recommend to the appropriate State Government for withdrawal of status as University, in case of University established or incorporated under a State Act. The learned counsel raised the contention that in this case there has been a gross default on the part of the 4th respondent in discharging its obligations under the said 2015 Regulations. He, therefore, wanted this Court to issue appropriate directions in this regard.

6. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are basically three fold. He would contend that the first respondent stands implicated in the instant case and that therefore it is grossly improper on his part to constitute an enquiry committee by himself. That would be a clear violation of the principles of the natural justice. Secondly, when the CBCID is already seized of the matter and is conducting an investigation, it is not open to the first respondent to set up a parallel enquiry. Thirdly a