R MURALIDHARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are filed challenging the Government Order (4d) No. 6, Adi Dravidar and tribal Welfare Development Department dated 27. 03. 1998.

(2.) THE petitioners were appointed as Research Assistants in the Department of Tribal Welfare centre pertaining to the second respondent University which was established at Ootacamund. The said Department was established in the year 1983-84. The Government, by G. O. Ms. No. 16 1, Adidravidar and Tribal Welfare (TD) Department, dated 13. 09. 1995, has taken over the administrative control of Tribal Research Centre on 13. 09. 1995. Even though the Government has taken the administrative control in respect of the said Department, the Department was well within the second respondent University. In fact, at one point of time, options were asked for, from the Teachers and Research Assistants like that of the petitioners, for which the petitioners have given their option to continue to work in the second respondent University. There are various communications to show that the second respondent University desired to retain the department by itself, even though there were financial commitments. Ultimately, the impugned order came to be passed by the Government by deputing the petitioners and the said Research assistants from the Tribal Welfare Centre to Government Departments. Based on the impugned government Order, the second respondent has passed resolution on 28. 03. 1998. The petitioners challenged the impugned Government Order on various grounds contending that the university Department cannot be taken away by the Government Order, since the Department is created by the statute. In as much as the second respondent University was created by the tamil University Act of 1 982 and the Department of Tribal Welfare Centre was forming part of the University Department, the impugned order by which the Research Assistants like that of the petitioners were sought to be sent on deputation with the Government is not permissible in law. On the other hand, the second respondent University would contend that when once government passed the impugned G. O. , the second respondent is bound to follow the same in as much as the entire administrative control of the Tribal Welfare Centre including the financing was done by the Government and in such circumstance, the second respondent has no other go than following the Government Order. Even though it is admitted by the second respondent university that the University is retaining the Department with it, it had to follow the Government order because of the financial constraint.

(3.) MR. HARIPARANTHAMAN, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Jawaharlal Nehru University Vs. Dr. K. S. Jawatkar and others, reported in 1989 Supp. 1 SCC Page No. 679, would submit that the transfer of an University employee to some other Department cannot make the employee ceased from the University service. The Supreme Court in that case, has held that eventhough transfer has been effected, the transfer will not make the University servant to be other than an University employee.