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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72523

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Mohit Wills B.J. – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order

14.10.2025 26.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU W.P.(MD) No.27613 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.23441 & 23442 of 2024 Mohit Wills B J.

... Petitioner -vs-

1.The Secretary to Govt., Higher Education Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St., George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Director, Department of Collegiate Education, Institute of Advanced Study in Education Campus, Mother Teresa University and Research Centre, 577, Anna Salai, Tod Hunter Nagar, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

3.Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Gandhi Nagar, Tirunelveli – 627 008

4.The Principal, Rani Anna Government College for Woman, Gandhi Nagar, Tirunelveli – 627 008.

5.The Registrar, Annamalai University, Chidambaram – 608 002. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 in e.f.vz.;29120/b4/2024 of the 2nd respondent and quash as illegal and pass such further orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran AAG Assisted by Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar AGP for RR1 to R4 Mr.Karthik Raja for R5 for M/s.Ajmal Associates

O R D E R

This Writ Petition had been filed to quash the impugned order dated

08.10.2024 of the 2nd respondent.

2. Heard Mr.M.Prabhu learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Baskaran learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.Karthik Raja, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Assistant Professor of the Annamalai University and is presently working under the Department of Higher Education, Government of Tamil Nadu on deployment based upon the Government order in G.O.(Ms).No.14 dated 23.01.2016 and presently serving as an Assistant Professor in Commerce Department at Rani Anna Government College for Women at Tirunelveli on and from the year 2021.

4. At that juncture, it had come to the knowledge that the students are forced to purchase specific textbooks from specific publishers and distributors and also text notes for class tests and periodical tests. He would further submit that even though the petitioner holds a Doctorate Degree in Commerce he had not been permitted to teach the P.G. students and a contract staff has been allotted to teach the P.G. students. These have been continuously highlighted by the petitioner and hence, the Head of the Department had a grudge over the petitioner.

5. While that being so, the first year B.Com students who joined the college newly had surprised the petitioner by celebrating his birthday. This had irritated the Head of the Department and other Professors who had come down heavily on the said students. While that being so, the petitioner who has been teaching Company Law for the II Year B.Com shift 1 was removed from teaching the said subject.

6. A written complaint was also given to the fourth respondent that the students have been forced to purchase textbooks and as they could not afford to buy books at such high cost. While that being so, the petitioner was asked to appear for an enquiry on 20.03.2024 for a complaint against the petitioner for celebrating the birthday inside the class. The complaint copy was also not given to the petitioner. Under the orders impugned herein the second respondent herein had addressed a letter to the fifth respondent releasing the petitioner from deputation and had called upon the fifth respondent to take necessary disciplinary action against the petitioner. He would submit that aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had preferred the present Writ Petition.

7. He would submit that there is malice in withdrawing the deployment and posting the petitioner back to his parent department.

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