SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 2184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Suresh Kumar, Shamim Ahmed, JJ.
Annamalai University, represented by its Registrar - Appellant
Versus
A.Parre - Respondent
WA.Nos. 316, 355, 365, 378, 396, 442, 466 and 481 of 2026, CMP.Nos.3346, 2839, 3110, 3203, 3618, 4328, 4419 and 4591 of 2026
Decided On : 25-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, SC for Mr.S.Nambi Arooran-All WAs
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Singaravelan, SC, Mr.A.Selvendran, SGP, Mr.G.Mutharasu, Mr.G.Mutharasu, Mr.G.Mutharasu, Mr.Mr.G.Mutharasu , Mr.Mr.G.Mutharasu , Mr.R.Singaravelan, SC , Mr.S.Ramesh

The re-designation of employees to lower cadres and resulting pay reductions were declared illegal, ensuring their original designations and pay scales are restored during redeployment.

Headnote:(A) Annamalai University Act, 2013 - Redeployment of excess staff - The court declared that the re-designation of staff to lower cadre and reduction of pay scales were illegal and issued directions to restore original pay scales and positions. (Paras 11, 12)

(B) Writ jurisdiction - The role of the court is to ensure the legality of administrative actions and to prevent unjustified loss to employees during redeployment. (Paras 10, 13)

Facts of the case:
Writ Appeals were filed against a Writ Court order that invalidated the re-designation of several employees of Annamalai University and instructed restoration of their original pay and positions. The grounds included loss of identity and pay due to redeployment.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the findings of the Writ Court, reinforcing that the redesignation was illegal and mandating restoration of positions and salaries by the university within prescribed timelines.

Issues: Whether the redesignation and pay reduction imposed on the employees was justified and necessary, and how it affects their identities and emoluments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that maintaining the integrity of employee rights during administrative actions is paramount, and any wrongful designation or pay modifications should be reversed to ensure just treatment.

Result: Writ Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. redeployment of excess staff by annamalai university. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. writ petitioners' objections to deployment orders. (Para 11)
3. court upheld writ court's directions to restore pay. (Para 12 , 13)

JUDGEMENT :

R.Suresh Kumar, J.

1.Since these Writ Appeals have been directed, against the common order passed by the Writ Court, dated 26.11.2025, in the respective Writ Petitions in WP.Nos.40872, 43045, 38357, 38543, 40805, 40868, 43048 and 43119 of 2025, all these Writ Appeals were heard together and disposed of, by this common judgement.

2.The Appellant is the Annamalai University, which is a State University. Till 2013, it was a Private University, governed by a State Legislation. Subsequently, by the Annamalai University Act, 2013 (In short “Act”), the Annamalai University has become a full-fledged State University and has been maintained by the State and funds are being generated from the State Government.

3.After the Annamalai University was taken over by the State, as a Unitary University, it was found that many number of teaching staff and non-teaching staff, who were working at the time of taking over of the Annamalai University by the State Government , were in excess. Therefore, a policy decision was taken by the Annamalai University in consultation with the Government and the same has been implemented by issuance of various Government Orders, by the State Government, thereby, the excess teaching staff and non- teaching staff, having been identified are being redeployed to various Government Institutions, Organisations and Departments, in a phased manner.

4.One such Government Order had been issued by the State Government in GO(D)No.217, Higher Education (H1) Department, dated 20.08.2025, thereby 230 teaching staff and non-teaching staff in this batch, having been identified as excess staff, have been redeployed to various Institutions, like Government Engineering Colleges, Polytechnic Colleges as well as the Departments, like Public Works Department, etc.

5.Pursuant to the said GO(D)No.217, Higher Education (H1) Department, dated20.08.2025, when individual deployment orders had been issued to the employees, those employees, including the teaching staff and non- teaching staff, numbering about 30 had joined together and filed a batch of Writ Petitions in WP.No.40872 of 2025, etc. before this Court, questioning the said GO(D)No.217, Higher Education (H1) Department, dated 20.08.2025.

6.The main grounds urged by the Writ Petitioners before the Writ Court were that they had been working in the Annamalai University in a particular designation, both in the teaching category as well as the non-teaching category as the case may be. However, by virtue of this deployment, they would be posted in the deployed post in a different designation, thereby they would loss their identity and designation, which they have earned so far, by virtue of their qualifications and seniority, at the Annamalai University.

7.The second ground urged by them before the Writ Court was that the salary that has been fixed basically on them by the Annamalai University and had been received by them hitherto would also be reduced or modified, thereby they will be losing a part of their pay scale, by virtue of this deployment. Therefore, on these two main grounds and also the ground that the very deployment itself may not be justified or necessary, in view of the current strength of the teaching staff and the non-teaching staff, at the Annamalai University and therefore, the very deployment had also been questioned by them before the Writ Court in the said batch of Writ Petitions.

8.Later, the Writ Court, having taken all these Writ Petitions together and on hearing these Writ Petitions, disposed of the same, by the common order, dated 26.11.2025, which is impugned in these Writ Appeals.

9.After hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the Writ Court has ultimately allowed the Writ Petitions in part by making a se

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