IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.12.2025 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI J.Vijila ... Petitioner Vs Anna University, Rep.by the Registrar, Guindy, Chennai-600 025. ... Respondent Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings Memo.No.914/AU/UCE-NGL/CCC/EC1/2023 dt:15.12.2023 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to change the date of the absorption from 08.07.2014 to 01.08.2012 as per Clause 11-viii of the G.O.Ms.No.452 Higher Education (11) department dt.20.10.2015 with all service benefits including seniority and monetary benefits.

For Petitioner : M/s.L.Parvinbanu For Respondent : Mr.U.Bharanidharan, Standing Counsel (Anna University)

O R D E R

Challenging the order of rejection passed by the respondent in and by which, the petitioner’s request for revision of her date of absorption from 08.07.2014 to 01.08.2012 has been rejected, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. The petitioner completed her B.Tech degree in Information Technology and M.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering. Pursuant to the recruitment notification issued by Anna University, the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor and after participating in the selection process, she was appointed as Lecturer/Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering in the Anna University, Tirunelveli on 12.08.2010. Subsequently, Anna University, Tiruvelveli was merged with Anna University, Chennai. As per the provisions of Anna University Merger Act, 2011, certain faculties were absorbed from the date of merger i.e., from 01.08.2012 while others were placed under the category of excess faculties and the persons falling under such category, who possessed the required qualification were absorbed w.e.f, 08.07.2014 including the petitioner.

3. Later, the services of some of those faculties were retrospectively absorbed w.e.f. 01.08.2012, however, the said benefit was not extended to the petitioner alone. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner addressed a representation to the respondent requesting for revision of her date of absorption from 08.07.2014 to 01.08.2012. However, the said representation was rejected by the present impugned order dated 15.12.2023 on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification as per the recruitment notification and therefore, the revision of date of absorption is not feasible. Challenging the said rejection order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, after merger, the petitioner was initially absorbed w.e.f 08.07.2014 along with other faculty members vide absorption order dated 22.10.2021. However, the benefit of retrospective absorption granted to similarly situated persons, who were absorbed w.e.f 01.08.2012 was not extended to the petitioner, despite the petitioner having fulfilled the requisite qualification as per the recruitment notification which is wholly contrary to G.O.Ms.No.452, Higher Education (l1) department dated 20.10.2015. Hence, the impugned order passed by the respondent cannot be sustained. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the Writ Petition.

5. Per Contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent reiterated the averments in the Counter Affidavit and submitted that the petitioner’s appointment was categorised as ‘Excess’ vide G.O.(Ms).No.452 Higher Education (l1) Department, dated 20.10.2015 and that the requisite qualification for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor as per the recruitment notification dated 04.03.2010, was M.E/M.Tech in Computer Science, whereas, the petitioner possess B.Tech degree in Information Technology and M.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering and thus it is clear that, it is due to the lack of requisite qualification