Madras High Court
P.Rajesh Presanna vs The Anna University Of Technology on 4 April, 2018
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.04.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD) Nos.10041 of 2012 and 17038 of 2012
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2012
P.Rajesh Presanna ... Petitioner in both W.Ps.
Vs.
1.The Anna University of Technology,
Rep by its Registrar,
Trichy.
2.The Vice-Chancellor,
Anna University of Technology,
Trichy. ... Respondents in both W.Ps.
3.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai. ... 3rd Respondent
in W.P.(MD)No.10041 of 2012
4.The Regional Director,
Anna Universtiy,
Regional Office,
Trichy.
5.The Dean,
University College of Engineering
BIT Campus,
Anna University,
Trichy.
6.Elangovan,
Department of Civil Engineering
University College of Engineering,
BIT Campus,
Anna University,
Trichy. ... 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondent
in W.P(MD)No.17038 of 2012
Prayer in W.P(MD)No.10041 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letter
No.AUT/REGO/EO/2012/01 dated 28.05.2012 issued by the first respondent and
quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to allow the
petitioner to maintain the Status-Quo as Professor cum Estate Officer in the
scale of pay of Rs.43000+10000 in the scale of pay Rs.37000-67000+10000 with
effect form 23.02.2011 which was changed by the first respondent without
following the due process of law.
Prayer in W.P(MD)No.17038 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents herein not to interfere in the day to day affairs of the
petitioner post i.e. Professor cum Estate Officer and permit the petitioner
to discharge his statutory duties.
!For Petitioner : Mr.Mathavan
^For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Rajarajan
For R3 :Mrs.S.Srimathy
Special Government Pleader
For R6 :Mr.EVN.Siva
:ORDER
Since both the writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner and the facts are overlapping and interconnected, both the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2.The facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of the writ petitions are as follows:
The petitioner is a post graduate in Civil Engineering with Ph.D in Civil Engineering. He joined as a Lecturer (Selection Grade) in the department of Civil Engineering cum Estate Officer at Anna University of Technology, Trichy, the respondent University herein. As per their order dated 16.05.2007, the petitioner joined as a Lecturer (Selection Grade) in the Department of Civil Engineering cum Estate Officer and continued in the post. Since the said appointment was temporary appointment for six months or some limited period, on expiry of the said period, time and again, such appointment can be extended by the respondent University. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the year 2009, he was appointed on regular basis as Assistant Professor and thereafter by order dated 23.05.2011, the respondent University pursuant to the resolution passed by the Syndicate of the University had appointed the petitioner as Professor cum Estate Officer at Anna University of Technology, Trichy. In that capacity, the petitioner had been working till 2012.
3.While so, by order dated 24.01.2012 the Registrar of the respondent University had communicated to the petitioner that the said appointment made in favour of the petitioner as Professor cum Estate Officer was null and void as per the direction issued by the Joint Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, and the said issue already has been referred to the Local Fund Audit and on the basis of the remarks obtained from them, it was placed before the Syndicate and till a decision is taken by the Syndicate, in this regard, the petitioner was permitted to continue as Estate Officer in that University. In the said letter, it was also intimated that, if any excess salary was paid to the petitioner, the same would be recovered.
4.Thereafter, the respondent University issued the impugned order dated 28.05.2012, by which, the University had modified its earlier order dated 23.05.2011 by way of partial modification and accordingly, appointment of the petitioner as Professor cum Estate Officer was modified as Estate Officer with effect from 23.05.2011. The excess payment made in this regard, which was worked out to Rs.91,327/-, was ordered to be recovered in 10 monthly instalments of Rs.9,133/- per month with effect from 28.05.2012. Aggrieved over the said order of the University, the petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.10041 of 2012.
5.During the pendency of that writ petition, the Writ Petition No.17038 of 2012 was filed with a prayer for a Writ of Mandamus seeking direction to the respondents not to interfere in the day to day affairs of the petitioner post i.e. Professor cum Estate officer and permit the petitioner to discharge his statutory duties.
6.During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had benefitted with the interim order, whereby the recovery of excess payment of salary, which was sought to be recovered through the impugned communication, was stayed.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned representing counsel appearing for the respondent University.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though has raised so many issues assailing the order impugned herein, this Court is not inclined to go into that aspect, in view of the fact that the impugned order itself designating the petitioner only as an Estate Officer instead of Professor cum Estate Officer and since there cannot be a post or designation in the University, like the one as Professor cum Estate Officer, as there is no document to show that the statute does provide for any such post, the very basis of challenge made against the impugned order, in the opinion of this Court, will not be sustained.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent University submits that, during the pendency of these writ petitions, on 29.01.2013, the petitioner was suspended from service for some alleged irregularities. As against which, the petitioner also filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.7414 of 2017 before this Court and the same is pending consideration till date. The respondent University is a statutory body and it is governed only by the Act, under which, it was created and the statutes made thereunder. In any academic institution, like the respondent University, there would be two hierarchy of job and position. One is that in teaching side, there is a hierarchy of position like, Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor. Like that, on the administrative side, there may be a hierarchy of position. No doubt, the post called ?Estate Officer?, would not come within the purview of teaching side of the University and necessarily, it has to be considered only in the administrative side. However, Professor of the University is certainly a teaching faculty and the qualification and the job nature and the work responsibilities is entirely different from the position held by the persons in the administrative side.
10. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to observe that there cannot be a post called Professor cum Estate Officer in the Statutory University created by an Act of legislature. When that being the position, this Court is at a loss to understand as to how the petitioner was appointed as Professor cum Estate Officer or Assistant Professor cum Estate Officer by the proceedings of the respondent University dated 23.05.2011. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity in passing the impugned order by the respondent University, whereby the mistake committed by them, by appointing the petitioner as Professor cum Estate Officer, as a temporary measure, has been rectified. Moreover, on perusal of the impugned order, it discloses that, the post called Estate Officer also carry respectable salary and emoluments and there may not be much difference in the salary and the emoluments between the Estate Officer and the Assistant Professor. Therefore, for all these reasons, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot assail this order, as the University's earlier mistake seems to have been rectified to some extent by passing the impugned order. Hence, the main prayer sought for in this writ petition fails. Accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed.
11.However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the earlier intimation letter dated 24.01.2012 issued by the Registrar of the University, on the very same date, on receipt of the same, the petitioner had given a reply to the University, which reads thus:
?With reference to the above, I wish to submit the following points for your consideration.
I was appointed as Professor cum Estate Officer by the Syndicate of the University. Hence, only the Syndicate has the power to remove me from the post. However, in obedience to the Registrar letter vide reference cited above I accept and willing to continue as Estate Officer. Also I accept to recover the excess salary paid to me for the post of Professor cum Estate Officer.
However, I wish to place on record that I have the required qualification and experience for the post of Professor cum Estate Officer and I state that I will abide with the final decision of the Syndicate.?
12.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner has accepted the modification made through the impugned order to work as an Estate Officer, as per his request through the said representation dated 24.01.2012 to the University Office that since he is having a necessary qualification to be considered as a Teaching faculty, he can be considered as such by the Syndicate of the University, who is the Competent Authority to consider the request of the petitioner, as to whether he can be offered with the post of any teaching faculty of the University. Therefore, in that context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the request made on 24.01.2012 may be directed to be considered by the respondent University. In normal parlance, such kind of request can be considered by the respondent University. But, here in the case in hand, it has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent University, that, in the meanwhile, since the petitioner has been suspended from service on 29.01.2013 and against which, he filed a writ petition before this Court, which is pending till date, the University is precluded, from taking decision with regard to the designation / re-designation / offering alternative employment in the teaching faculty. If at all, the University takes any such decision by lending the helping hand to the petitioner, considering his qualifications, as he has already completed the Doctorate Degree, this order would not stand in the way and it is up to the University to take any pragmatic decision, considering the factual matrix of this case. However, it is made clear that insofar as the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, as he was suspended from 29.01.2013, it is up to the University to proceed with the said disciplinary proceedings, if they are advised to do so.
13.However, since the said issue is the subject matter in another W.P(MD)No.7414 of 2017, this Court cannot go into the details or veracity of the said disciplinary proceedings and no indulgence can be shown on such issue.
14.In the result, the Writ Petition (MD)No.10041 of 2012 is dismissed as devoid of merits. In view of the dismissal made in W.P.(MD)No.10041 of 2012, the petitioner cannot seek for any indulgence in the second writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.17038 of 2012. In the result, the Writ Petitions ie. W.P.(MD)Nos.17038 of 2012 and 10041 of 2012 are also dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
.