Madras High Court
Dr.M.Ponnusamy vs University Of Madras on 8 January, 2013
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.01.2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.17262 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 Dr.M.Ponnusamy ... Petitioner Versus University of Madras Rep. by its Registrar, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner as the Head of the Department of Tamil Language. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondent : Mrs.G.Thilagavthi O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is a professor in the Department of Tamil Language in University of Madras. In this writ petition, he seeks for a direction to the respondent to appoint him as the Head of the Department of Tamil Language.
2.When the writ petitioner came up for admission on 05.07.2012, this Court directed notice to be served to the learned Standing Counsel for the University of Madras. Accordingly, Mrs.G.Thilagavthi learned Standing Counsel for the respondent is appearing.
3.A counter affidavit, dated 25.07.2012, has been filed by the respondent, sworn in by the Registrar of the University of Madras. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit dated 09.08.2012.
4.Heard both sides.
5.The case of the petitioner was that he joined University as a Lecturer in the year 1985 and subsequently, he was promoted as Reader in the year 1992. In the year 1997 he was again promoted to the post of Professor in Tamil Language. Though there was a vacancy in the post of Head of Department as early as 2007, the petitioner was not promoted to the Head of the Department. He made number of representations. Thereafter, on 24.06.2010, the petitioner was promoted as Head in-charge of the Department of Tamil Language, consequent to the retirement of one Dr.N.Deivasundaram, Professor and Head of Department of Tamil Language. The petitioner was the senior most faculty in the said Department. However, the petitioner was placed under suspension on charge of sexual harassment framed against him. Eversince the date of suspension, one Dr.V.Arasu, Professor and Head, Department of Tamil Literature was holding the Head Post as in-charge in the Department of Tamil Language. An Enquiry Committee was constituted under the convenership of one Dr.R.Venkata Krishna Murali, Member Syndicate along with two others, to enquire into the charge of sexual harassment framed against the petitioner. The said Committee after enquiry found the charge framed against him as not proved. The report of the Enquiry Committee was placed before the Syndicate. The Syndicate by Resolution dated 04.03.2011 accepted the findings of the Enquiry Committee as not proved and the suspension of the petitioner was revoked with immediate effect and the said order was also communicated to the petitioner by the Registrar vide his proceedings dated 21.03.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner sent a representation on the same day stating that he joined duty as Professor pursuant to the said communication. After eight months, after the said communication, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor during November-2011 stating that though he is entitled to be posted as Head of the Department, he has not been given the said post and therefore, he requested the Vice-Chancellor to grant him the said post. He further sent reminders dated 16.04.2012, 25.06.2012 and 28.06.2012. In the meanwhile, the period of suspension was regularized by the University and it was communicated to the petitioner by the Registrar in-charge vide proceedings dated 29.06.2012. It was, thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondent to grant him the post of Head of the Department of Tamil Language.
6.In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it was stated that though the Syndicate accepted the report of the Enquiry Committee, it decided not to give him any administrative post to the petitioner till his retirement and the said decision was also communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner also gave an undertaking on 18.03.2011 stating that he will not claim Headship for the Department of Tamil Language.
7.A copy of the said undertaking, dated 18.03.2011, given by the petitioner was produced by the learned standing counsel for the respondent. The operative portion of the said letter written by the petitioner addressed to the Registrar, Madras University, reads as follows:-
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED
8.It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the order of suspension was revoked by the University only when the petitioner was willing to continue as Professor of Tamil Language and he will not demand the post of Head of Department of Tamil Language. It is stated by the respondent that the University is taking effective steps as an academic Body to ensure that no doubt is raised in the integrity and functioning of the University. Though the Committee rendered the finding that charges were not proved, the overall findings rendered by the Committee required the University to take a decision by deliberating the same at the Syndicate, which was also accepted by the petitioner at the relevant point of time. It is further stated that reinstatement itself was given to the petitioner only because of his undertaking dated 18.03.2011 and therefore, the petitioner cannot wriggle out of his relinquishment of demand for Headship of the Department of Tamil Language.
9.It is curious to note that the petitioner did not refer to the undertaking given by him on 18.03.2011 in the affidavit filed in the writ petition. However, in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner chose to state as follows in para 6:-
"....it is submitted that if there was in fact a resolution not to give headship to the petitioner, there was no need for the petitioner to give a letter of undertaking on 18.03.2011 stating that he will not claim headship. The petitioner further denies any such resolution communicated to him. The petitioner was coerced and compelled to give such an undertaking, and the petitioner was informed that only if such an undertaking is given by him, they would consider his representation for revocation of suspension. Thus as soon as the petitioner submitted the said undertaking on 18.03.2011, the respondents passed an order of revocation of suspension just 3 days after its submission i.e. on 21.03.2011. Thus from the above circumstance it is evident that the petitioner was coerced to give the undertaking dated 18.03.2011 and as such the undertaking has no legal bearing on the petitioner as well as the respondents."
If the contention of the petitioner was that the said undertaking was given under coercion, nothing prevented him from revealing the same in the affidavit so as to invite reply from the Registrar. The fact that he has chosen to suppress the mistake. Hence, the stand of the petitioner is unacceptable.
10.In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.10 of 2004 (Rajendra Prasad Shukla Vs. Ram Chandra Singh and others), dated 04.08.2004, to contend that unable to accept a post for some personal reasons should not be treated as personal willingness and cannot act as an embargo. It is not clear as to how the said decision is relevant to the present case. The said case did not arise out of the context in the present writ petition.
11.This Court had an occasion to peruse the file produced by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent relating to the enquiry relating to the allegation of sexual harassment against the petitioner, by a Committee constituted in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Visaka Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The first committee held the petitioner guilty of all the charges. In any event, the circumstances under which another committee was constituted and how the enquiry proceedings were dealt with and whether it was in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, are not issues that arose for consideration in this writ petition. It is suffice, now the petitioner is holding the post of Professor and he has been working for more than 23 years. Having written a letter (undertaking) in his own handwriting relinquishing his demand for Head of the Department, the petitioner cannot turn back and disown the said letter.
12.For the reasons stated above, this Court is not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for maintaining the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
ssv To The Registrar, University of Madras Chepauk Chennai 600 005