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) 74172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
R. RACIL JEYAGEETHA – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.08.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR WMP(MD).Nos.15509 of 2023 and 11283 of 2022 R.Racil Jeyageetha ... Petitioner in WP(MD).No.16017 of 2019 A. Jeba Malar ... Petitioner in WP(MD).No.25880 of 2019 Vs.

1.The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai – 6.

2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli.

3.The Registrar, Manonmaniyam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli.

4.The Correspondent, Nesamony Memorial Christian College, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents in both W.Ps PRAYER in W.P (MD).No.25880 of 2019: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned proceedings vide MSU/R/CDC/A3/311/Q.A/A.P (Reg)/ 2 dated 10.10.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent University and quash the same as illegal and direct the 3rd respondent to approve the petitioner's post from 16.06.2010 and provide all service and monetary benefits from the date of her appointment dated 16.06.2010 and to forward her proposal as per the proceedings of the 4th respondent.

PRAYER in W.P (MD).No.16017 of 2019: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to forward the petitioner's proposal to approve the qualification as per the proceedings of the 4th respondent, dated 06.10.2017 and to approve and regularise her appointment as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics in the 4th respondent College with effect from 03.09.2009 and grant all her service and monetary benefits fro the period from March, 2009.

For Petitioner in both W.Ps. : Ms. T. Sathya Selvi For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader For 3rd respondent : Ms. H. Jasima Yasmin

COMMON ORDER

The Writ Petition in W.P (MD).No.25880 of 2019 has been filed to call for the records of the impugned proceedings vide MSU/R/ CDC/A3/ 311/Q.A/ A.P (Reg) / 2 dated 10.10.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent University and quash the same as illegal and direct the 3rd respondent to approve the petitioner's post from 16.06.2010 and provide all service and monetary benefits from the date of her appointment dated 16.06.2010 and to forward her proposal as per the proceedings of the 4th respondent.

The Writ Petition in W.P (MD).No.16017 of 2019 has been filed for issuing a direction to the 3rd respondent to forward the petitioner's proposal to approve the qualification as per the proceedings of the 4th respondent, dated 06.10.2017 and to approve and regularise her appointment as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics in the 4th respondent College with effect from 03.09.2009 and grant all her service and monetary benefits fro the period from March, 2009.

2. The petitioners are working as Assistant Professors in the 4th respondent College. They have filed the above Writ Petitions seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to forward the proposal for approval of their appointments made by the 4th respondent. According to them, they acquired requisite qualifications for appointment as Assistant Professors. Though they were initially appointed on a temporary basis, the University subsequently insisted that they have to be obtained the NET certificate in order to continue in service. It is the case of both the petitioners that, being M.Phil. degree holders, they are exempted from the requirement of NET / SLET. It is further stated that the insistence on possession of a NET certificate is contrary to the University Regulations, and therefore, their services are liable to be regularized from the date of their initial appointment as Assistant Professors.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the University submitted that it is true that the petitioners were engaged as Assistant Professors in the 4th respondent College. Subsequently, the University framed regulations mandating th

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