Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
R.Palaniappan – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman, University Grants Commission – Respondent
W.P(MD)No. 6292 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Interest Litigation
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. N.Ganesh
For the Respondents: Mr.D.Sasikumar Additional Government Pleader, Mr.T.Amjad Khan Standing Counsel
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner files for a writ to challenge notification. (Para 1 , 2) |
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
The petitioner, claiming as an Advocate, filed the writ petition in the Public Interest Litigation to consider his representation.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that a notification was issued by the Director of Legal Studies, Chennai, for appointment of Assistant Professors and Associate Professors and the appointments are to be made in subject wise and cannot be general appointment and if it is not to do so, the same will have a serious impact.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents
2 to 4 submits that the petitioner is attempting to challenge the notification in this writ petition filed as public interest litigation. However, he cannot challenge the same and hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. Though the petitioner filed this writ petition as public interest, claiming that the appointment of Assistant Professors and Associate Professors has to be made in subject wise, the fact remains that he seeks to challenge the notification. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot challenge the notification in the public interest litigation and there is no public interest involved. Hence, we finds no merits in this writ petition.
6. With the said observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
