Madras High Court
Mohit Wills B J vs The Secretary To Govt
W.P.(MD) No.27613 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order
14.10.2025 26.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.(MD) No.27613 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.23441 & 23442 of 2024
Mohit Wills B J.
... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Secretary to Govt.,
Higher Education Department,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Fort St., George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director,
Department of Collegiate Education,
Institute of Advanced Study in Education Campus,
Mother Teresa University and Research Centre,
577, Anna Salai, Tod Hunter Nagar,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
____________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 04:37:11 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.27613 of 2024
3.Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Gandhi Nagar,
Tirunelveli – 627 008
4.The Principal,
Rani Anna Government College for Woman,
Gandhi Nagar,
Tirunelveli – 627 008.
5.The Registrar,
Annamalai University,
Chidambaram – 608 002. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated
08.10.2024 in e.f.vz;.29120/b4/2024 of the 2nd respondent and quash as
illegal and pass such further orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabhu
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran AAG
Assisted by
Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar AGP for RR1 to R4
Mr.Karthik Raja for R5
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
____________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 04:37:11 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.27613 of 2024
ORDER
This Writ Petition had been filed to quash the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 of the 2nd respondent.
2. Heard Mr.M.Prabhu learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Baskaran learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.Karthik Raja, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Assistant Professor of the Annamalai University and is presently working under the Department of Higher Education, Government of Tamil Nadu on deployment based upon the Government order in G.O.(Ms).No.14 dated 23.01.2016 and presently serving as an Assistant Professor in Commerce Department at Rani Anna Government College for Women at Tirunelveli on and from the year 2021.
____________ Page 3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 04:37:11 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.27613 of 2024
4. At that juncture, it had come to the knowledge that the students are forced to purchase specific textbooks from specific publishers and distributors and also text notes for class tests and periodical tests. He would further submit that even though the petitioner holds a Doctorate Degree in Commerce he had not been permitted to teach the P.G. students and a contract staff has been allotted to teach the P.G. students. These have been continuously highlighted by the petitioner and hence, the Head of the Department had a grudge over the petitioner.
5. While that being so, the first year B.Com students who joined the college newly had surprised the petitioner by celebrating his birthday. This had irritated the Head of the Department and other Professors who had come down heavily on the said students. While that being so, the petitioner who has been teaching Company Law for the II Year B.Com shift 1 was removed from teaching the said subject.
6. A written complaint was also given to the fourth respondent that the students have been forced to purchase textbooks and as they could not afford to buy books at such high cost. While that being so, the petitioner was asked ____________ Page 4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 04:37:11 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.27613 of 2024 to appear for an enquiry on 20.03.2024 for a complaint against the petitioner for celebrating the birthday inside the class. The complaint copy was also not given to the petitioner. Under the orders impugned herein the second respondent herein had addressed a letter to the fifth respondent releasing the petitioner from deputation and had called upon the fifth respondent to take necessary disciplinary action against the petitioner. He would submit that aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had preferred the present Writ Petition.
7. He would submit that there is malice in withdrawing the deployment and posting the petitioner back to his parent department. Details of allegations against the petitioner have not been shared and such withdrawal of the deputation is wholly punitive and stigmatizing the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner's appointment by way of an agreement which is governed by Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Rules has now been governed by Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Conditions and Service Act 2016. When that being so, the impugned order relieving the petitioner is without any authority. Therefore, he would submit that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.
____________ Page 5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 04:37:11 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.27613 of 2024
8. In support of his contention, he had also relied upon various judgments which are listed as follows:-
a) Constitutional bench judgment in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao & Ors vs. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in AIR 1959 SC 308 ;
b) Full Bench judgment in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao & Ors vs. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in AIR 1959 SC 1376; and
c) State of U.P., vs. Modh.Nooh reported in AIR 1958 SC 86;
9. Countering his arguments, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that it is an admitted case where the petitioner’s parent organisation is the fifth respondent where he had been appointed as Assistant Professor in the Commerce Department. Considering the surplus teaching staffs in the Annamalai University, of which the petitioner was one of them, certain deployments have been made under the G.O.(Ms).No.14 Higher Education Department dated 23.01.2016, on agreement basis for a period of three years which have been repeatedly extended. The petitioner stood ____________ Page 6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 04:37:11 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.27613 of 2024 transferred to the fourth respondent institution on his own willingness. The petitioner being a male faculty had not followed any Rules or restrictions and had been misguiding the girl students and had also not followed the moral ethics. The discipline in the institution started to deteriorate in view of the conduct of the petitioner. He had also been instigating the students to give a complaint on vexatious allegations. He had also instigated third parties including T.V. channels and representatives of the Students Federation of India to threaten the fourth respondent to take action based upon the complaints of students which had been given at the instance of the petitioner.
10. A complaint had been given against the petitioner from certain of his professor colleagues and also the Teachers Association. Even the parents in a meeting held on 23.09.2024, which was a parents meeting regularly held by the Administration, have complained against the petitioner for misguiding their wards. He would submit that the petitioner who had been sent on deputation has a lien only with the fifth respondent/ University and cannot have a right to continue on deputation by way of deployment on agreements. ____________ Page 7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 04:37:11 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.27613 of 2024
11. It is for the borrowing authority or the lending authority to decide his continuance either with the borrowing authority or to reverted back to the parent body. Further, any disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner could only be done by the parent organisation and not by the organisation to which he had been deployed. As various complaints have been received against the petitioner, the petitioner would have to be sent back to the parent organisation for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. Only to avoid the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner is attempting to stay back in the organisation where he has been deputed. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would also adopt the arguments made by the learned Additional Advocate General in that regard.
13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for their respective parties and perused the materials available on record.
____________ Page 8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 04:37:11 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.27613 of 2024
14. Admittedly, the petitioner had been appointed as Assistant Professor in the fifth respondent/ University and in view of the surplus teaching staffs in the fifth respondent/ University he had been deployed to work with Government colleges by issuance of the Government orders in that regard. The contract of agreement has also been extended periodically and he is currently now working in the fourth respondent/ Institution. When that being so, with or without allegations the petitioner is liable to be repatriated to his parent organisation. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General if any disciplinary proceedings have to be initiated against the petitioner, it could be only done by the parent organisation, which had employed him, even for delinquencies that had been committed in the deputed/ deployed place.
15.It is not in dispute that complaints have been made against the petitioner for which enquiry necessarily have to be conducted and such enquiry could only be conducted by the appointing authority and not by the authority where he had been deputed to work. Therefore, the reasons attributed in the order impugned herein and the decision to repatriate the petitioner to the parent organisation, in the considered view of this Court do ____________ Page 9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 04:37:11 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.27613 of 2024 not suffer from any infirmity.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any merits in the Writ Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
26.11.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Gba
____________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 04:37:11 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.27613 of 2024
To:
1.The Secretary to Govt.,
Higher Education Department,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Fort St., George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director,
Department of Collegiate Education,
Institute of Advanced Study in Education Campus, Mother Teresa University and Research Centre, 577, Anna Salai, Tod Hunter Nagar, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
3.Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Gandhi Nagar, Tirunelveli – 627 008
4.The Principal, Rani Anna Government College for Woman, Gandhi Nagar, Tirunelveli – 627 008.
5.The Registrar, Annamalai University, Chidambaram – 608 002.
____________ Page 11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 04:37:11 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.27613 of 2024 K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
Gba PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN W.P.(MD) No.27613 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.23441 & 23442 of 2024 26.11.2025 ____________ Page 12 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 04:37:11 pm )