HoD appointment requires rotational basis among eligible faculty, strict adherence to due process, hearings, and three-year tenure limit under Section 46.

ORDER :

P.T. ASHA, J. 

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the 1st respondent appointing the 2nd respondent as a Head of the Department of Psychology (hereinafter referred to as ‘HoD’ for the sake of brevity) in accordance with Section 46 of the Annamalai University Act 2013 (herein after referred to as the “Act”).

2. The short facts which has resulted in the filing of the above Writ Petition are as follows:-

2.1. It is the contention of the petitioner that she has been serving the 1st respondent University since 19.02.2001. In the year 2018, she was promoted as an Associate Professor and she has to her credit 24 years of continuous and meritorious service. The petitioner would submit that she is fully qualified and eligible for appointment as HoD as per Section 48 of the Act.

2.2. The petitioner would submit that on a rotational basis, she had been appointed as HoD in compliance with directions issued by the Tamil Nadu Higher Education Department vide letter No.2503/K2/2024-16 dated 22.05.2025. This letter mandated that the post of HoDs should be filled on a rotational basis once in every three years and that a list of such appointments be submitted to the Government. The petitioner would submit that contrary to this rule, by the impugned order dated 03.09.2025, the 2nd respondent was arbitrarily appointed as HoD without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without affording her an opportunity of hearing, both of which are contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 19968 of 2025.

2.3. The petitioner submitted that the 2^nd respondent had already served a full tenure as HoD from 24.07.2019 to 24.07.2022 and therefore he cannot be reappointed without selecting from the other eligible faculty members, such as the petitioner. Earlier orders of this Court, as well as judgments of other courts, clearly indicate that the position of HoD is a notional appointment and not a promotion, and should therefore be filled on a rotational basis so that all eligible candidates have the opportunity to learn the nuances of administration.

2.4. The petitioner’s contention is that, as per Section 46 of the Act, the teaching departments of the University follow a three-tier structure in the teaching faculty, as follows:-

(i) Professors,

(ii) Readers (Associate Professors)

(iii) Lecturers (Assistant Professors)

2.5. The position of HoD is offered on a rotational basis across the three tiers of the teaching faculty. However, contrary to this settled rule, the 2nd respondent has been appointed as HoD that too without following the directions passed in WP.No.19968 of 2025 dated 27.06.2025. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Since the issue involved in the case on hand is purely one of interpretation of the Act and the existing rules, arguments have been advanced by both the 1^st and the 2^nd respondents and no counter has been filed by them.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, in his letter dated 22.05.2025, had enclosed the minutes of the meeting held with the Registrars of all Universities under the aegis of the Higher Education Department on 15.05.2025, in which one of the items of the agenda was as follows:-

“The Secretary to Government instructed the Registrars to identify those Heads of Departments in Universities who are serving as HoDs in the same Department for more than 3 years and to furnish the list to the Government. He also instructed the Registrars to appoint the faculty in the post of HoD on rotation basis for every 3 years.”

5. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that Section 46 of the Act provides for the appointment of the HoD on a rotational basis and provides that a person may hold the post of HoD for a period of three years. He would submit that this issue had been considered by this Court in WP.No.14940 of 2015 wherein the learned Judge of this Court by order