SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 642

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
P. Samuel – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 35201 of 2024, 294, 470, 995, 3428 of 2025, W.M.P. Nos. 337, 553, 1235, 3818 of 2025
Decided On : 12-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : L. Chandrakumar, M. Santhanaraman
For the Respondents: M.R. Gokulakrishnan, H. Mary Sowmi Rexi

The court established that qualified teaching staff must not be dislodged in favor of newly appointed personnel without valid reasons, affirming the principle of retained employment rights post-college conversion.

Headnote:(A) Government Orders - G.O.No.36 Higher Education Department dated 28.02.2019; G.O.Ms.No.184, dated 11.12.2020 - Conversion of constituent colleges into Government Colleges - Petitioners appointed by a University and not absorbed post-conversion, seeking direction for absorption and benefits - Precedent established by previous case law directed absorption of similarly situated staff. (Paras 3-6)

(B) Employment Law - Rights of the petitioners regarded, Government should not dislodge qualified teaching staff for similar positions - Logic against replacing experienced staff with newly appointed personnel - The Government is expected to be a model employer. (Paras 12-13)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners appeal regarding non-absorption in positions post conversion of colleges from University management to Government Colleges, citing prior case law mandating absorption and similar benefits for staff.

Findings of Court:
The notification regarding filling Assistant Professor posts is interfered with; petitioners are to be absorbed into Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Services with all attendant benefits.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, appointed by the University, could be dislodged upon the colleges' conversion to government entities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that existing staff cannot be replaced arbitrarily, stressing that experienced staff should remain in their positions unless valid reasons exist to replace them.

Result: Writ petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. writ petitions seeking absorption of petitioners. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners' appointment and rights regarding absorption. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's observations on existing staff qualifications. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. final decision on absorbing petitioners and closing petitions. (Para 8)

ORDER :

1. These writ petitions have been filed seeking direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioners in the respective posts to which they were appointed and to extend all the attendant service and monetary benefits.

2. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions are common in nature, they are heard together and disposed of by way of a common order.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were appointed by the third respondent University and posted in different Colleges affiliated to the third respondent University. During the year 2019-20, the Government of Tamil Nadu announced that the Arts and Science Colleges which are established as constituent Colleges of the Universities will be converted into Government Arts and Science Colleges and vide G.O.No.36 Higher Education Department dated 28.02.2019 converted 14 Colleges as Government Colleges and vide G.O.Ms.No.184, Higher Education Department, dated 11.12.2020 converted 27 Colleges as Government Colleges. The learned counsel further submitted that after issuance of the said Government Orders, the first respondent took over the infrastructure of the Colleges and left over the staff recruited by the third respondent University.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that till date, the petitioners were not absorbed in the respective Colleges and further submitted that the petitioners cannot be repatriated to the third respondent University. The learned counsel further submitted that the issue involved in these writ petitions is no longer res integra. Similar issue has already been considered by this Court in wherein this Court allowed the said writ petitions and issued direction to the respondents 1 and 2 therein to absorb the petitioners therein into Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Services for Government Arts and Science Colleges and extend all the attendant service and monetary benefits on par with other teaching staff working in the Government Arts and Science Colleges in Tamil Nadu and the same was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for allowing these writ petitions.

5. Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is useful to extract hereunder the relevant portion of the order of this Court in W.P. Nos. 10315 of 2024 [ Dr. S. Diravidamani and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600009 and others ] dated 22.10.2024:

“12. The discussions that took place between the Government and the Registrar belonging to various Universities before the Government decided to take over the constituent colleges, may not be of any relevance while dealing with the rights of the petitioners and similarly placed persons who are now working in those Government colleges after it was taken over. As observed in the earlier order passed on 03.09.2024, the petitioners and other similarly placed persons are regular teaching staffs who were appointed by following proper procedure in sanctioned posts and were paid the UGC scale of pay. If the petitioners and other similarly placed persons are going to be dislodged and fresh Assistant Professors are going to be appointed in such vacancy, it will defy reasoning. The persons who are going to be newly appointed as Assistant Professors will carry the same qualifications and they will be paid the same scale of pay and therefore, to undertake such an exercise by dislodging the petitioners and similarly placed persons is illogical and unwarranted. In fact, the concerned coll

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top