Madras High Court
Dr.J.Jasmine vs A.Felicia Chithra on 28 July, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar
W.A.No.355 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.07.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.A.No.355 of 2023
and
CMP.No.23195, 22137 & 19128 of 2022
Dr.J.Jasmine ...Appellant
-vs-
1.A.Felicia Chithra
Professor in Nursing,
Mother Theresa Post Graduate and
Research Institute of Health Sciences,
Puducherry.
2.Union of India
represented by the Secretary to Government of
Union Territory of Puducherry
Department of Health and Family Welfare
Puducherry.
3.Mother Theresa Post Graduate and
Research Institute of Health Sciences,
represented by Chairman of its Governing Body Chief Secretary
Puducherry.
4.The Dean
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:33 pm )
W.A.No.355 of 2023
Mother Theresa Post Graduate &
Research Institute of Health Sciences
Gorimedu, Puducherry.
5. Indian Nursing Council
represented by its Secretary
Kotta Road, Temple lane,
New Delhi.
6.Tamilnadu Nursing Council represented
by its Secretary,
Kilpauk,
Chennai. ...Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, set aside
the order dated 02.09.2022 in W.P.No.22036 of 2009 and dismiss the writ
petition only to the limited extent of direction to appoint the writ
petitioner as the regular principal of MRPG & RIGHS, Pondicherry, six
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Balasubramanian
For R1 : Mr.R.Saravanan
For R2 to R4 : Mr.A.Tamilvanan
Additional Government Pleader(P)
For R5 : Deppak Narayanan
For R6 : Mr.AR.Nixon
JUDGEMENT
(Judgement was delivered by P.DHANABAL, J.) 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:33 pm ) W.A.No.355 of 2023 This writ appeal has been preferred as against the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.22036 of 2009, wherein the 1st respondent filed a writ petition against respondents 2 to 6 without impleading the writ petitioner seeking to quash the notification bearing Ref.No.7-22/E- 2/Esr./MTIHS/2008 dated 05.10.2009. Since the appellant herein was not a party to the proceedings in the Writ Petition, she filed a petition to grant leave to prefer this writ appeal and the same was granted by this Court.
2. According to the appellant, she was appointed as a Lecturer in the 3rd respondent establishment in the year 2001 along with 1st respondent and one A.Maria Therese. The 4th respondent issued a tentative seniority list and the same was objected by the appellant. Without considering the objections, the 4th respondent issued a final seniority list placing the 1st respondent at No.1, Maria Therese at No.2 and the appellant at No.3 and the same was challenged through writ petition in W.P.No.5513 of 2009, which is pending.
3. While W.P.No.5513 of 2009 was pending, the 3rd respondent promoted the appellant, the 1st respondent and Maria Therese, placing the 1st respondent and Maria Therese in the senior rank. Consequently, the 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:33 pm ) W.A.No.355 of 2023 appellant filed writ petition in W.P.No.2317 of 2020 and the same is also pending.
4. While so, the 1st respondent filed a writ petition challenging the notification issued by the 3rd respondent in Ref.No.7-22/E- 2/Esr./MTIHS/2008 dated 05.10.2009 by suppressing the aforesaid two writ petitions and without impleading the appellant. As a result, some parties got orders in their favour. Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ appeal after obtaining leave from this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.5513 of 2009 and 2317 of 2020 challenging the inter-se seniority amongst the appellant, the 1st respondent and one Maria Therese, where the 1st respondent is party to the proceedings. While so, without impleading the appellant as one of the parties, the 1st respondent filed writ petition No.22036 of 2009 by suppressing the material facts. The writ Court directed the 3rd respondent to appoint the writ petitioner in the 3rd respondent institution to the post of Senior Professor. The Writ petition has to be dismissed on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties as well as suppression of material facts. 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:33 pm ) W.A.No.355 of 2023 5.1. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the 1st respondent did not even acquire Ph.D qualification at the time of her appointment as Professor and in such circumstances she cannot claim seniority among Professors. Her further claim that she is the senior most Professor and she is eligible for the post of Principal is not correct.
5.2. The learned counsel submits that one Rukkumani Ammal who was working as Professor in the 3rd respondent establishment, got superannuation and at that time, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.22036 of 2009 viz., Thirumathi Felicia Chitra, who was not even qualified with Ph.D at the time of her appointment, claimed for the post of Professor. However, the only qualified and eligible candidate for appointment to the post of Professor as per the rules and regulations is the writ appellant herein who acquired Ph.D and U.G qualification even at the time of her appointment. Furthermore, only after obtaining Ph.D qualification, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.22036 of 2009 can claim the seniority for the post of Professor. In such scenario, without impleading the appellant as one of the parties to the writ proceedings, the 1st respondent herein filed W.P.No.22036 of 2009 and obtained order in her favour by suppressing 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:33 pm ) W.A.No.355 of 2023 many factual details. Therefore, this Writ Appeal has to be allowed and the order passed by the writ Court is liable to be set aside.
6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the 4th respondent framed relevant rules and norms for the 3rd respondent Institute. As per the present rules, the staffing pattern is Tutor-Lecturer- Reader/Associate Professor, Professor cum Vice-Principal, Professor- cum-Principal. The essential qualification for the post of Professor is Masters Degree in Nursing and 10 years of experience of which 5 years teaching experience. The recruitment rules for the post of Professors was also framed by the Governing body and the post of Professors is to be filled up by way of promotion from among the persons who hold the post of Reader with two years of service or five years of service both as Reader and Lecturer together.
6.1. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would further contend that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner in W.P.No.22036 of 2009, joined the 3rd respondent Institute as a Lecturer on 09.06.2001 and was promoted as Reader with effect from 24.02.2006 and possess PG decree in Nursing and have also registered for Research Program and continued 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:33 pm ) W.A.No.355 of 2023 Ph.D in the year 2009.
6.2. It is further contended that the 3rd respondent institution had decided to redesignate the senior most Reader in each of the Institute to be the Principal. While so, the 4th respondent has decided to appoint a Principal for the Nursing College. The only course open to the 3rd respondent Institute is to promote the 1st respondent/writ petitioner in W.P.No.22036 of 2009 or other qualified persons as per recruitment rules and redesignate the senior most as the Principal. However, the 3rd respondent Institute, without doing the same, in total violation of the rules, issued order dated 14.10.2009.
6.3. Feeling aggrieved by the above said notification, the writ petitioner and other teachers submitted a representation on 07.10.2009, 20.10.2009 and 23.10.2009. However panel proceedings in respect of those notifications are not dropped. In the said notification, the minimum qualification prescribed was only a PG degree for the post of Principal with M.Phil being the desirable. Thereafter, by the impugned notification, Ph.D has been made as minimum essential qualification for the post of Principal, thereby preventing the persons already working and eligible 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:33 pm ) W.A.No.355 of 2023 under the recruitment rules has not been considered for the post. Therefore, the impugned notification is illegal and liable to be quashed.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the official respondents would submit that the writ petitioner in W.P.No.22036 of 2009 was initially appointed as Lecturer in Nursing on temporary basis with effect from 09.06.2001 and confirmed in the post on 09.06.2003 and she possessed Master of Science in medical surgical nursing and was promoted as Reader with effect from 24.02.2006. Subsequently promoted as Professor in Nursing on regular basis and she was designated as Principal in- charge of Nursing with effect from 13.4.2018 and she has been holding charge of the post of Principal. One Rukumani Ammal worked as Professor Cum Principal in-charge, got retired in the 3rd respondent Institute and the said Rukumani Ammal filed writ petition W.P.No.14000 of 2018 praying for enhancement of superannuation age from 62 to 65 and the same was not approved by the Governing Body and she attained age of 62 and superannuated on 30.06.2017. Thereafter, the writ Court passed order by quashing the notification and directed the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner in W.P.No.22036 of 2009 as a regular Principal. 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:33 pm ) W.A.No.355 of 2023
8. This Court heard both sides and perused the records.
9. The main contention of the writ appellant in this case is that already the appellant filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.5513 of 2009 and 2317 of 2020, challenging the seniority fixed by the 3rd and 4th respondents. While so, suppressing the aforesaid writ petitions, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner in W.P.No.22036 of 2009, without impleading the appellant filed the said writ petition and got favourable orders. Therefore, suppressing the aforesaid facts, the writ petitions have been filed without impleading the proper as necessary party and the writ petition has to be dismissed on those grounds.
10. Further, according to the writ appellant the 3rd respondent Institute is an affiliated university and appointments are necessarily to be made in accordance with UGC norms, and the 1st respondent did not even acquire Ph.D qualification at the time of her appointment as Professor, in such circumstances, she cannot claim seniority among the professors, secondly, her further claim that she is the senior most Professor who is eligible for the post of Principal is also not right.
9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:33 pm ) W.A.No.355 of 2023
11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that one Rukkumani Ammal got superannuated who held the post of Professor and was in-charge of the post of Principal, the 1st respondent herein/writ petitioner who was actually qualified with Ph.D at the time of her appointment and not holding the post of Professor, cannot claim the said post stating that she is the senior most and eligible candidate to hold the post of Professor and in-charge Principal; the only qualified and eligible candidate in accordance with rules and regulations is the appellant, who acquired Ph.D; therefore, she has to be appointed as Principal. The further contentions that the seniority has to be fixed from the date of obtaining the degree and not from the date of appointment to the post of Professor; even for appointment of post of Principal, Ph.d as well as M.phil is mandatory; the appellant herein has got both the qualifications. As far as the qualification for the post of Principal are concerned the writ Court has not discussed about the same. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to make submission to the concerned authority to redress her grievance.
12. It is also put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant herein was not a party to W.P.No22036/2009, there is 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:33 pm ) W.A.No.355 of 2023 no findings given by the writ court in respect of requisite qualifications and the eligible persons in the 3rd respondent Institute; therefore, the decision arrived at by the writ court, on the basis of records placed before it that the writ petitioner is a senior most professor in nursing in the 3rd respondent institute, cannot be sustained.
13. It is true that this appellant was not impleaded as a party in the W.P.No.22036 of 2009. However, this Court has granted liberty to the appellant herein to challenge the dismissal order passed in the writ petitions filed by her in respect of her challenge to the seniority list. This writ appeal has been filed based on the seniority. In respect of the seniority issue already seniority list was published after hearing objections and the same was challenged through W.P.No.5513 of 2009 and today the said writ petition was dismissed. As far as the qualification for the post of Principal is concerned, the appellant is at liberty to approach the 3rd respondent by way of representation.
14. In view of the above said reasonings, we hold that even if the appellant was impleaded as a party in W.P.No.22036/2009, the ultimate result would be the same. Therefore, this writ appeal has no merits. 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:33 pm ) W.A.No.355 of 2023 Therefore, the order passed by the writ court need not be interfered with. However, in respect of the qualification for the post of Principal, the appellant can approach the 3rd respondent by way of representation. If any representation submitted by the appellant, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same in accordance with rules and procedures on merits within one month from the date of representation.
15. With the aforesaid observations, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[R.S.K,J.] [P.D.B, J.]
28.07.2025
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
mpa
To
1.Mother Theresa Post Graduate and
Research Institute of Health Sciences,
represented by Chairman cum Chief Secretary
to Government,
Puducherry,
2. Government of Pondicherry
represented by Secretary to Government,
Health Department, Puducherry.
12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:33 pm )
W.A.No.355 of 2023
3.The Dean
Mother Theresa Post Graduate &
Research Institute of Health Sciences
Puducherry.
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
P.DHANABAL, J.
mpa
W.A.No.355 of 2023
and CMP.No.23195, 22137 & 19128 of 2022
13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:33 pm )
W.A.No.355 of 2023
28.07.2025
14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:33 pm )