The court emphasized limited judicial review of administrative decisions and directed the authorities to consider explanations and make a decision in accordance with the law.

(Common Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the decision taken by the Finance Committee dated 18.01.2017 and Syndicate in Resolution No 41 dated 08.02.2017 in so far as re-fixing the Scale of Pay in the pay band of Rs.9,300-34,800 + GP 4,600 from 15,600-39,100 + GP 5400 and the consequential notice issued by the 3rd respondent bearing Reference No.C1-10/21851/2018 dated 13.08.2018 as illegal contrary to the statutory protection given under Sec 58 (3) (e) of the Annamalai University Act, 2013 and direct the respondents to continuously pay the salary as being paid as on date with 7th Pay Commission benefits from the due date.)

1. Challenging the Show Cause Notices issued to the writ petitioners, these present Writ Petitions are moved before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The grievances of these writ petitioners are that, after taking over of the Annamalai University by the Government, by way of an Enactment namely, the Annamalai University Act, 2013, all the employees both teaching and non-teaching staffs were absorbed by the Government.

3. In the process of regulating the administration, various steps are taken by the competent authorities of the University. Inspections are conducted, Audits and other verification of records were done and certain actions, which all are necessitated in order to regulate the administration were taken by the Government. The writ petitioners, who all are non teaching staffs, working in the cadres of Zonal officer, Liaison officer and Special officer Grade-I have been issued with the impugned show cause notices, broadly stating that these officials namely Zonal officer/Liaison officers/Special Officers Grade-I and Grade-II on the rolls of the University remaining as surplus in terms of the workload available; and causing a huge financial loss to a tune about Rs.60 Crores per annum. The continuance of these 785 surplus officers in employment without no work but with full pay almost cripples the financial situation causing huge deficit every year and posing imminent threat to the very existence of the University. It is notices that the initial appointment as well as the confirmation orders seems to have been issued pursuant to the orders of the Vice-Chancellor without the availability of any sanctioned post and without making any assessment of the prevailing workload and without any recommendation of the Finance Committee and without any resolution of the University Syndicate.

4. It is further stated in the impugned show cause notices that with the intent of striking a balance between the deteriorating financial position of the University and to avoid retrenchment of these surplus officers, who have no work in the University, has been exploring the possibility of accommodating these surplus officers against some other cadre for the time being namely, Assistant Section Officers in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800+ GP 4600. The steps are taken in order to maintain the financial stability of the University.

5. In this regard, the respondents have issued the impugned show cause notices in order to provide an opportunity to the writ petitioners and accordingly, all these writ petitioners are directed to submit their respective explanation/objections within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the impugned show cause notices.

6. All the writ petitioners had already submitted their explanations/objections to the impugned show cause notices pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective writ petitioners made submissions, mainly contending that pay protection has already been extended in the Statute itself. This apart, the Government also issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.402, Higher Education Department dated 13.12.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.108, Higher Education Department dated 28.04.2017, stating that even in the case of