DR. ALAGAPPAN Vs. ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question raised in this writ petition is with regard to the construction of sub-section (3) of Sec. 19 of the Annamalai University Act, 1928 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1929) wherein the petitioner challenges an order of the first respondent dated 19-1-1993.

(2.) The facts leading to the tiling of the writ petition are : The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that he is working as Professor and Head of the Department of Tamil Studies and Research and Dean, Faculty of Indian Languages in the Annamalai University. It seems that the petitioner is also an ex officio Syndicate Member of the Annamalai University. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that he is an internationally known Tamil Scholar and has several publications to his credit. It is further alleged in the affidavit that under the Annamalai University Act and under the regulations framed thereunder, particularly the powers issued under Sec. 19(3) of the Act, the Head of the Departments are appointed by the Vice- Chancellor from among the Professors, that the petitioner has been appointed as Head of the Department on 31-3-1984 after the then Head of the Department Dr. N. Balusamy, who retired. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner was so selected as the Dean of the Faculty of the Indian Languages, that the selection was announced on 6-12-1991 and that the order itself will show that the petitioner will be entitled to hold office till 22-8-1994, and that this was subject to the provisions of Sec. 33(4) of the Annamalai University Act. It is also alleged in the affidavit that all of a sudden, by a midnight order, the petitioner has been removed from the post of Head of the Department and made into a Professor, that the consequences are very serious and drastic, that a person is entitled to hold an Annamalai University office, that if he is being posted to another post even though it may not involve any monetary loss, still it would have serious adverse consequences as his responsibilities, powers and the entitlement to participate in important affairs of the University are all drastically reduced and that therefore such an action cannot be taken arbitrarily and in whimsical manner. It is stated that the petitioner's prospect of using the Syndicate membership is lost. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that the second respondent has done the same with a mala fide motive to prevent the petitioner from participating in the Syndicate meeting as the second respondent is not happy with the attitude of the petitioner raising questions in the Syndicate meeting. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner is entitled to even as a duty to thoroughly debate and question the actions of the second respondent in the statutory forum of Syndicate and that the action of the second respondent in passing the order on the eve of the syndicate meeting scheduled to take place on 23-1-1993 clearly shows that it is mala fide and a colourable exercise of power. It is also stated in the affidavit that no reason has been stated in the impugned order, and that if no reasons are stated in an order it will clearly offend Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further alleges in the affidavit, that the moment a Professor or a teacher is appointed as a Head of the Department, the power of appointment of a Head of the Department, referable to Chapter XII, Sec. 19(3) which is in effect by the second respondent will not be available to him. It is also stated that the power of appointment would exhaust itself when appointment is made. According to the petitioner, there cannot be an appointment of a person as Head of the Department, when already a Head of the Department is functioning as the Head of the Department can only be removed. It is further stated in the affidavit that Sec. 19(3) will apply only to a case where there is a vacancy caused by whatsoever nature in a department and that the petitioner is entitled to continue as Dean to the Faculty of Indian Language as per the terms of election and to function in that as Dean up to 22-8-1994.

(3.) A supplementary affidavit is filed by the petitioner in which it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Head of the Department with effect from 1-4-1984 FN "until further order" as he was the senior most Reader then, that he was confirmed with effect from 1-5-1986 as Professor, and as such he has to continue to be the Head of the Department. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that he applied to the post of Professor of Tamil in the year 1984, that certain others were also interviewed by a penal, that he was selected and appointed to the said post of Professor, that he was the only Professor in that post and that he subsequently completed the probation. It is also stated that though he could not remember the dates of the order of the respondent University appointing him as Head of the Department, he could recollect that he is definitely appointed as Head of the Department after the selection as stated supra.