The auditing authority cannot question administrative decisions taken by the university regarding appointments, as this exceeds its jurisdiction per the applicable laws.

ORDER :

(V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.)

The present Writ Petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashment of impugned show cause notice issued by the 1^st respondent dated 5-5-2023.

2. The brief facts of the case, as averred by the Writ Petitioner, are as follows:-

(i) The petitioner was appointed as Attender under the 1^st respondent on 24.06.2015 on a pay of Rs.5,200/- per month in the pay scale of Rs.5,200- 20,200+1,900 GP Plus allowances eligible under the University Rules. After the satisfactory completion of probation period of two years, the 1^st respondent confirmed the appointment of the petitioner from 24.06.2017, vide communication dated 13.03.2018 and thereafter, the petitioner is in continuous service with clean and good service records till date.

(ii) While so, the 1^st respondent issued a show cause notice dated 05.05.2023 indicating that the 3^rd respondent had raised an objection for the irregular appointments made by the 1^st respondent and the 1^st respondent was instructed to rectify the same. Further, by citing G.O.(D) No.71, Higher Education Department, suitable action to be taken on irregular appointments, thereby directed the petitioner to give explanation as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner's appointment is a regular appointment and the same was kept before the Syndicate and resolution was passed and only thereafter, the petitioner was appointed. The entire service rules and appointments are governed by the Service Rules and Regulation of the University of Madas and the respondents 2 and 3 are not concerned to interfere with the service rules and regulation of the University, hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner having been appointed on regular vacancies and after completion of the probation period satisfactorily, the appointment was confirmed and the petitioner is in service with clean chit till date not having been issued with even a memo as against his service. While that being so, the 1^st respondent’s action to issue the show cause notice on the basis of the 3^rd respondent raising an objection during the audit report is perse illegal as the 3^rd respondent has no role to play in the appointments made by the 1^st respondent, that too when the petitioner, who had completed morethan 10 years of service, cannot be thrown away by issuing such illegal show cause notice. That apart, when the appointment was made as a regular appointment, which was kept before the syndicate of the 1^st respondent and resolution was passed to that effect, cannot be given a goby mearly because the 3^rd respondent has raised an objection during the audit.

4. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/University filed a detailed counter and submitted that it is usual practice that the recruitment to the inferior establishment like peon, sanitary workers, sweepers, gardeners, watchman and any other cadre in the Class IV are made, as per the recommendations of the establishment committee considering the actual requirement of the Univeristy depending upon the availability of the vacancies in the respective positions or posts only in consultation of the finance committee so as to see that the recruitment are made within the budget provisions. Thereafter, the recommendation of the establishment committee are arpproved by syndicate of the University following by notification or advertisement calling up for application from eligible candidates. Thereafter, the application will be scrutinized and eligible candidates will be called for interview by a