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) 73194

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
Dr.Devendiran, S/o.Vinayagam Jayaraman – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar, Anna University – Respondent
W.P.Nos.32478, 32481, 32485 of 2024|W.P.Nos.31881, 31897, 31943, 32076, 32200, 32206, 32212, 33217, 32268, 32707, 33161, 33187, 35536, 35642, 36735, 33192, 33269, 33474, 34336, 34540, 34560, 34576, 34782, 35380, 35642, 37717, 37741, 37754, 38112, 42644, 42735, 42866 of 2025|WMP.Nos.35266, 35268, 35276, 35278, 35283, 35284 of 2024|WMP.Nos.35693, 35694, 35696, 35699, 35710, 35712, 35717, 35719, 35771, 35773, 35776, 35957, 35958, 36093, 36094, 36096, 36097, 36101, 36102, 36103, 36106, 36108, 36109, 36110, 36112, 36188, 36192, 36194, 36195, 36620, 36624, 36627, 36629, 37254, 37257, 37259, 37308, 37310, 37311, 37318, 37319, 37320, 37343, 37345, 37346, 37400, 37401, 37402, 37610, 37611, 37612, 38502, 38504, 38505, 38698, 38699, 38701, 38731, 38726, 38729, 38749, 38752, 38750, 38960, 38962, 38970, 39603, 39605, 39606, 39766, 39767, 39886, 39887, 41086, 41087, 41088, 41089, 42186, 42188, 42190, 42192, 42221, 42207, 42588, 42589, 42590, 47697, 47698, 47802, 47803, 47931, 47933 and 47934 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.D.Geetha
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Govarthanan, M/s.Row and Reddy

Absorption of adhoc faculty as Assistant Professors affirmed, emphasizing equal pay for equal work and recognition of long-term service.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioners seeking absorption as Assistant Professors and issuance of consequential benefits based on prior services as teaching fellows - Court acknowledged the precedent set by prior cases regarding absorption and salary parity - Notably highlighted the Supreme Court ruling in State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. (2017) 1 SCC 148 regarding equal pay for equal work. (Paras 1, 8, 24, 28)

(B) Employment Law - Regularization of Adhoc Appointees - The urgency of regularization of services for long-standing adhoc faculty was stressed, reflecting equitable treatment in salary and position - The court noted the principle of equal rights among similarly situated employees was paramount to uphold. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 48)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, as teaching fellows of Anna University, argued for absorption as Assistant Professors based on years of service, performing duties comparable to regular staff, without formal regularization despite long tenure.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioners for absorption as Assistant Professors and mandated equal pay to be awarded from the date of service until regular appointments occur.

Issues: Key questions involved legality of appointment extensions, regularization of adhoc staff, and adherence to past court judgments on appointment parity and equal pay.

Ratio Decidendi: Court reiterated that past services of adhoc teachers must be weighed suitably alongside university regulations, emphasizing the need for principles of equity and justice in employment context.

Result: Writ petitions allowed for absorption as Assistant Professors with consequent salary equalization.

Table of Content
1. petitioners challenge order related to service extension. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. legal basis for the petitioners' absorption as faculty. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. highlight on contracts and temporary faculty roles. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. arguments against regularization and employment rights. (Para 12 , 14)
5. recognition of past service significance for regularization. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
6. court's direction for salary adjustments and policy adherence. (Para 21 , 24 , 27)

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the Registrar, Anna University dated 28.07.2025, thereby, restricted the extension of the petitioners’ service till 31.08.2025.

2. The petitioners are qualified to be appointed as teaching fellows as per the notification issued by the 2nd respondent dated 20.06.2011. The petitioners had joined as teaching fellows in the 2nd respondent college. The 2nd respondent college is a constituent college of 1st respondent.

Similar to the second respondent, several other colleges were established at the regional level by the Registrar, Anna University by independent enactments. In the year 2011, a policy decision was taken to merge all those colleges and regional Universities and bring them under one umbrella i.e., the Registrar, Anna University, Chennai by the Tamil Nadu University Laws(Amendment and Repeal) Act, 2011 (Act 20 of 2011). It provides for way and means of accommodating the then existing staff and the assets and liabilities of the merged Universities. Thereafter, the Government constituted a meeting to oversee the merger process. The committee made several recommendations pertaining to the staff engaged on adhoc basis. Accordingly, the service of the persons currently engaged on adhoc basis in the constituent college will have to be specifically reviewed by the Registrar, Anna University and their services have to be utilised, where their services are genuinely required and their engagements fulfils the relevant University regulations.

3. In the process of regularisation of adhoc appointees, if the adhoc appointees fulfil all requirements under the 1st respondent, they may be considered for regularisation. However, the said recommendations were not given effect.

4. The respondents issued notification calling for appointment to the post of temporary visiting faculty/teaching fellow in the second respondent college in various Departments. The petitioners submitted applications and they were directed to appear for screening test and interview. They were selected and appointed as teaching fellows in their respective departments. In fact, they were selected by the Selection Committee through the selection process as prescribed by the University Grants Commission and All India Council for Technical Education and as that of regular Assistant Professor post.

5. Though the petitioners were selected as teaching fellows, they were performing the job of Assistant Professor, in all aspects. They have also performed the duties of examination hall supervisor, correction of answer papers of students, external examiner for practical examinations, Anna University examination representative, University question paper key setting and projects and viva-voce examinations for the students. Further, there has been no regular appointment to the post of Assistant Professor for the past 15 years. All the colleges are running with the teaching fellows on payment of consolidated salary of Rs.30,000/-. The pay scale applicable to regularly appointed Assistant Professor has been revised as per 7th Pay Commission recommendations and the minimum of the time scale of pay to the post of Assistant Professor is Rs.57,700/- along with House Rent Allowance at Rs.13,848/- and Dearness allowance at Rs.26,542/-. Therefore, the petitioners are treated as visiting faculties/teaching fellows on payment of consolidated salary.

6. Some of the teaching fellows filed writ petitions before this Court. This Court, by an orde

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