Madras High Court
Dr.M.Ponnuswamy vs University Of Madras on 20 February, 2008
Author: N.Paul Vasanthakumar
Bench: N.Paul Vasanthakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20-2-2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P.No.22171 of 2007 M.P.No.2 of 2007 Dr.M.Ponnuswamy, Professor Department of Tamil Language, University of Madras, Marina Campus, Chennai - 600 005. ... Petitioner Vs. University of Madras, rep.by its Registrar, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. ... Respondent Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the Resolution No.89 dated 8.6.2007 passed by the Syndicate of the University of Madras, quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondent : Mr.P.S.Raman, Addl. Advocate General, for Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisamy O R D E R
By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal.
2. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the resolution No.89 dated 8.6.2007 passed by the Syndicate of the University of Madras.
3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that by resolution No.89 dated 8.6.2007, the Syndicate of the respondent University resolved that the Vice-Chancellor be authorised to transfer the faculty members from one department to another department, including Institute of Distance Education in the same discipline/School/Centre as and when required and the same be reported to the Syndicate.
4. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the Professor in one department of School in the University can be transferred to another department in the same School or Centre of the University and he will be forced to teach a subject in which he has no specialised knowledge and by virtue of the said resolution, if transfers are effected it will lead to dilution of standards in the University. According to the petitioner, in the University of Madras, there are 17 schools, comprising of 66 departments, located in four campuses. Each department has separate Board of Studies, which will be headed over by a Head of the Department and other members of the Board of Studies, drawn from various other universities all over India. It is stated in the affidavit that in the year 1991, the University had clubbed all the departments for the purpose of application of roaster system for appointment in teaching post in the University and the said action was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.10610 of 1991 and the said writ petition was allowed by order dated 18.9.1991 following the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 959 (Dr.Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar) holding that the cadre strength of each department has to be separately assessed and clubbing various posts in all the departments and reserving posts on the basis of roaster will lead to 100% reservation, if there is only one post in a department. The said judgment of the single Judge was confirmed in W.A.No.1296 of 1991 by order dated 24.10.1991. The SLP filed against the said judgment before the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 16.4.1992. Due to the said judgment, the Government issued orders in letter No.(2D)No.58, dated 19.4.2002, to treat each department independently for the purpose of appointment. Citing the said order and the judgments, the petitioner states that transferring faculty members from one department to another department is contrary to the said decision. Focussing the said two contentions this writ petition is filed.
5. Respondent filed counter affidavit contending as follows:
(a) The University of Madras is introducing quite a number of inter- disciplinary courses in various branches of studies and it may not be in a position to appoint required number of faculty persons for all these inter-disciplinary courses. The University also has started Centres of Excellence viz., Population studies, Ocean studies, Disaster Management Studies, Environmental Studies, etc., and the curriculum of various branches of studies are expanding and the University has to cope up with the growing needs of dissemination of knowledge to the student community.
(b) To achieve the same, teaching manpower has to be inevitably transferred from one department to another to handle inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary nature of studies of various branches in the department of University and for that purpose the University decided to post teaching faculties from one department to another.
(c) It is also stated in the counter affidavit that in the appointment order issued to the faculty members, it is stated that they are liable to be transferred including to the Institute of Distance Education as a general condition and the impugned resolution was passed to avoid financial commitment on the part of the University by appointing fresh candidates.
(d) For the contention that by effecting transfers from one department to another, there will be dilution of standards, it is submitted that there are many inter disciplinary programs such as Bio-Chemistry, Bio-Physics, Bio-Informatics, Corporate Sociology, Actuarial Sciences and Hospital Management and to cope up the demands for teaching these faculties, a situation has arisen to transfer the faculty from one department to another to handle inter disciplinary nature of subjects related to them.
(e) It is further stated that the Syndicate, as early as in March, 1988, had approved the transfer of teaching faculties in approving norms evolved by the T&RD Committee for inter departmental transfers. A Sociology teacher or a Psychology teacher or an Economics teacher is as much required in offering a master degree program in management as those of management experts. Similarly, a Mathematics Teacher is required not only in Computer Science and Statistics but also Physics and it is impossible for the University to appoint as many teacher as much of inter disciplinary courses are introduced.
(f) An assurance is given in the counter affidavit that while transferring faculty members, 'the University would carefully examine the issues of transfer with regard to subject curriculum, compatibility in consultation with the competent faculty members in the respective areas of studies. The University would also evolve certain strategies to see that the transferees are not put to any disadvantages.'
(g) A chart is filed along with the counter affidavit to show that in some of the traditional courses the students' demand is on the decline and in the department of Adult and Continuing Education the strength of students in 2007-2008 is one, however, there is one Professor, two Readers and two Lecturers are working. Similarly in the department of Pathology, no student is admitted for the year 2007-2008, however there are two Professors and one Lecturer are still working in that department. Similar is the strength in other departments.
(h) Recently, during pendency of the writ petition, the Senate of the University in its meeting held on 27.10.2007 has approved the amendment to statute 25 of Chapter IX of University Calendar Vol.1, 2001, which reads as follows:
"In a University Department in which if there are Professors then the Senior Most Professor shall be the Head of the Department and all other Professors, Readers and Lecturers, if any, shall work under the direction of the Professor and Head of the Department concerned with the subject, and shall assist him in the performance of his duties as defined in law 22, 23 and 24 of this Chapter.
In a Department in which there is no Professor, but only Readers then the senior most Reader, shall be the Head-in-charge of the Department, and all other Readers and Lecturers, if any, shall assist him and work under his direction.
In a Department in which there is no Professor or Reader, but only Lecturers then the senior most Lecturers shall be the Head-in-charge of the Department, and all other Lecturers, if any, shall assist him and work under his direction.
Provided however, that the above provision will not in any manner retract the power of the Syndicate to place and faculty member of the University in the rank of professor of relevant School/Chairperson of the School as Head-in-charge of the Department, if any urgent situation warrants."
For the said amendment, the Governor of Tamil Nadu gave his assent on 20.12.2007 and the same is also enforced. Pointing out these factual aspects and the impracticability in retaining faculty members in excess in some departments, the respondent seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contention raised in the affidavit by stating that each department should be treated separately as held by this Court in the earlier writ petition for fixing the cadre strength and therefore transfer of faculty members from one department to another department will upset the cadre strength and also dilute the standard of teaching and hence the impugned resolution is to be set aside. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the amendment to Statute 25 of Chapter IX of the University Calendar Vol.1, 2001, is made only with regard to the post of head in-charge of the department on urgent situations and the said amendment nowhere permits the University to transfer the faculty members viz., Professors, Readers and Lecturers.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent University on the other hand submitted that the decision relied on by the petitioner is relating to the appointment of faculty members in each department and when a single post is available in a department, there cannot be any reservation of that post and the same was found illegal in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 959 (Dr.Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar) and the said decision has nothing to do with the transfer of faculty members from one department to another department to handle classes of inter-disciplinary subjects. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that no faculty member will be transferred to other faculty, which has no relevant subject and a scheme will be evolved in consultation with the competent faculty members in the respective areas of studies and a strategy will be adopted and no faculty member will be put to any disadvantage. It is also pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General that as per the Annexure filed in the typed set of papers, there are 65 departments and in some departments there are more number of students, however there is less number of faculty members and in some departments either there is no students or very few students, however, the faculty members are on the higher side. Therefore, the University resolved to re-deploy the excess faculty members to needy departments, that too only in the inter- disciplinary departments. Hence there will be no dilution of standards in the departments and the interest of the teaching staff will be taken care of. The Additional Advocate General also submitted that in the appointment orders given to every faculty members, it is clearly stated that they are liable to be transferred including to the Institute of Distance Education and therefore no further amendment in the statute to transfer the Professors, Readers and Lecturers is warranted.
8. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent University.
9. The point in issue is as to whether a faculty member from one department can be transferred to another department as per the impugned resolution and whether the said action will affect the rights of the faculty members and will dilute the standards of education.
10. The appointment order given to the petitioner on 11.6.1985, Clause 7 states that the petitioner is liable to be transferred to any of the University Post Graduate Centres at any time, and in Clause 10, it is stated that the petitioner has to perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the Head of the Department and authorities of the University, from time to time. When the petitioner was promoted as Reader in the Department of Tamil language under the Career Development Scheme by order dated 25.2.1999, he was informed in Clause 8 that he is liable to be transferred to any of the University Departments/P.G. Centres at any time and under Clause 10 he was directed to perform such other duties as may be assigned by the authorities of the University from time to time. Some other appointment orders were also produced before me issued on 29.3.1985, 6.10.1994, 3.6.2005 and the promotion order given on 25.2.1999.
11. From the perusal of the above appointment orders and promotion orders it could be seen that there is a clause empowering the University to effect transfers from one department to another by the Head of the Department or the authorities of the University and the petitioner has accepted the said terms and conditions of the appointment as well as the order of promotion. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the impugned resolution authorising transfer from one department to another department on administrative exigencies. The Annexure filed in the typed set of papers contain the name of departments, student strength in 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and also the staff strength which reads as follows:
Sl.No Name of the Department 2006-07 2007-08 Staff Strength P R L 1 Ancient History and Arcchaeology 12 30 1 - 2 2 Indian History 38 35 1 - 2 3 Anthropology 10 5 2 - 3 4 Criminology 76 20 1 - 3 5 Psychology 65 35 2 1 1 6 Education 26 23 1 - 1 7 Adult and Continuing Education 2 1 1 2 2 8 Sociology 67 33 1 - 3 9 Defence and Strategic Studies 24 6 1 1 2 10 Anna Centre for Public Affairs 27 7 2 1 -11
Politics and Public Administration 26 32 1 1 2 12 Economics 39 35 3 1 -
13Econometrics 19 9 3 - 2 14 Mass Media and Communication Studies 72 52 - - 4 15 Philosophy 7 3 3 - 2 16 Saiva Siddhanta
-
-
1 - -
17Vaishnavism 35 10 2 - -
18 Christian Studies 33 18 1 - 1 19 Jainology 5 4 - - - 20 JBAS Centre for Islamic Studies 1 1 - - 1 21 Indian Music 74 27 1 - 1 22 English 68 50 1 - 5 23 French 19 22 1 - 1 24 Hindi 13 13 1 - 2 25 Kannada 3 9 1 - 1 26 Malayalam 14 25 1 1 1 27 Tamil Literature 54 27 1 - 3 28 Tamil Language 47 34 2 - 2 29 Telugu 34 7 1 - 2 30 Arabic, Persian and Urdu 38 22 2 - 1 31 Sanskrit 15 17 4 - 2 32 Commerce 98 45 1 - 3 33 Information Science 18 9 2 1 1 34 RIAS in Mathematics 58 59 7 1 1 35 Statistics 57 27 - - - 36 Computer Science 31 15 1 - 4 37 Geography 23 20 1 1 3 38 Management Studies 175 92 2 2 1 39 Dr.Ambedkar Centre for Economics Studies 3 6 1 - - 40 Legal Studies 16 1 1 - 2 41 Centre for South & Southeast Asian Studies 1 8 1 - 2 42 Geology 20 18 3 - 2 43 Applied Geology 26 21 3 - 4 44 Analytical Chemistry 20 16 3 1 - 45 Inorganic Chemistry 25 21 2 - 3 46 Organic Chemistry 23 20 2 - 3 47 Physical Chemistry 21 12 2 - 1 48 Polymer Science 21 9 - 1 2 49 Crystallography and Biophysics 35 19 5 1 - 50 Theoretical Physics & Nuclear Physics 25 8 1 2 2 51 Nuclear Physics 31 9 2 - 4 52 Biochemistry 100 61 2 1 3 53 Biotechnology 57 25 1 1 3 54 CAS in Botany 92 55 7 - 8 55 Zoology 31 20 4 1 1 56 Central Instrumentation Research & Science 5 2 - - 2 57 Medical Biochemistry 41 21 3 - 2 58 Genetics 66 28 3 2 2 59 Microbiology 10 9 3 - 2 60 Endocrinology 32 12 3 - 2 61 Pharmacology and Environmental Toxicology 10 6 3 - 3 62 Anatomy 21 13 - - 3 63 Pathology - - 2 - 1 64 Physiology 4 5 - - 2 65 National Centre for Ultrafast Processes 8 10 - - 1
12. From the perusal of the above Annexure, it is evident that in the department of Saiva Siddhanta, there was no student to undergo PG course for the year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 and one Professor is working in the department without any work. Similarly, in the department of Pathology, no student is admitted for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, however, there are two professors and one Lecturer working in the said department without any work. On the other hand, in the department of Bio-Chemistry, there were 100 students admitted in the year 2006-2007 and 61 students for the year 2007-2008, for which only two Professors and one Reader and three Lecturer posts are available, which may not be sufficient to handle the said number of students. Similarly in Management Studies, number of students admitted for 2006-2007 was 175 and for 2007-2008 92, for which only two Professors, two Readers and one Lecturer posts are available. In the department of English, the number of students admitted for 2006-2007 was 68 and in 2007-2008 it is 50, for which one Professor and 5 Lecturers are available.
13. The above facts and figures clearly strengthen the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General that in many departments, even though there are no students or very limited number of students, there is excess staff and even though number of students are on the higher in some departments, the faculty members available are less. The University cannot dispense with the services of any of the faculty member on the ground of want of students and inter disciplinary courses having been introduced in the University, the faculty members can be transferred to other departments, which have relation to their discipline/ faculty. There can be no hardship faced by the faculty members due to the said transfer as there is an assurance given in the counter affidavit that the University would carefully examine the issue of transfer with regard to the subject curriculum, compatibility, in consultation with the competent faculty members in the respective areas of studies. It is further stated that the University would also evolve certain strategies to see that the transferees are not put to any disadvantage. The impugned resolution also states that the faculty members may be transferred from one department to another in the same discipline/School /Centre.
14. The decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reported in AIR 1988 SC 959 (Dr.Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar) is only with regard to reservation of single post, which is impermissible and the University is not reserving any post by virtue of this transfer and it is only adjusting the excess teaching faculty by re-deploying them, that too in the relevant or inter-discipline/School/Centre.
15. By the impugned resolution, the conditions of service of the petitioner is not at all affected. There is no reduction in status, emoluments and also in the number of working hours. If the impugned order is not upheld, the respondent University will be forced to retain the petitioner in the very same department even if there is no workload to petitioner in the Department. The University Grants Commission guidelines also prescribe certain number of working hours to the Head of the Department, Professors, Readers and Lecturers, which goes to show that if there is lesser number of working hours in a department for a Professor, Reader, Lecturer, he may be allotted work in other Departments, where relevant subjects are to be handled, provided they are inter-disciplinary. Since the appointment/promotion order contain a clause to transfer the petitioner and teaching faculty members to any other Department, no amendment is required in the Statute 25, Chapter IX of the University Calendar, Vol.I, as the appointment order itself confers power to effect transfer and it is an incident of service.
16. The petitioner having accepted the order of appointment and promotion, accepting the conditions that he is liable for transfer to any department by the authorities of the University, no case is made out to quash the impugned resolution.
There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
vr To The Registrar, University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.