Madras High Court Dismisses Appeal by College Secretary Against Regularisation of Assistant Professor. Appointment of Teacher Without Following UGC Regulations and University Norms Held Invalid, No Right to Regularisation.

High Court: Madras High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 214
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case pertains to a writ appeal filed by the Secretary of Arulmigu Palaniandavar College of Arts and Culture against an order of a learned Single Judge dated 06.07.2021 in W.P.No.308 of 2014. The first respondent, S.Umarani, had filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the HR&CE Department and the college to regularise her services as Assistant Professor of Zoology from the date of her initial appointment in July 2002 with all consequential benefits. The writ court had directed the college to submit a proposal to the Secretary, Higher Education Department, who in turn was directed to process the application and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks. The appellant college challenged this order, contending that the writ court's finding that the first respondent's case was fit for regularisation was contradictory to the direction to take a decision. The Division Bench examined the facts and found that the first respondent was appointed in July 2002 without any advertisement, without following the UGC Regulations and the University Ordinances, and without the approval of the University. The court noted that the appointment was made purely on a temporary basis and that the first respondent did not possess the requisite qualifications. The court held that the appointment was illegal and not irregular, and therefore no direction for regularisation could be issued. The court relied on settled legal principles that all public appointments must be made under the Constitutional scheme and that regularisation cannot be granted for illegal appointments. The court also noted that the first respondent had not challenged the appointment order and had accepted the terms. The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the first respondent was not entitled to any relief.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Regularisation of Appointment - Irregular vs Illegal Appointment - Appointment made without following UGC Regulations and University Ordinances is illegal and cannot be regularised - The first respondent was appointed as Assistant Professor in July 2002 without any advertisement or selection committee as per UGC Regulations and University Ordinances - The court held that such an appointment is illegal and not irregular, and therefore no direction for regularisation can be issued - The writ court's order directing submission of proposal for regularisation was set aside (Paras 3-10).

B) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Public Employment - Equality of Opportunity - All public appointments must be made in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - Any appointment made in violation of the prescribed procedure violates the right to equality of all eligible candidates - The court emphasised that regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment and cannot be granted to those who entered service through backdoor (Paras 3-5).

C) Education Law - UGC Regulations - Teacher Eligibility - Appointment of Assistant Professor must be made as per UGC Regulations and University Ordinances - The first respondent did not possess the requisite qualifications and was appointed without following the due process - The court held that such an appointment is void ab initio and cannot be regularised (Paras 6-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the writ court was correct in directing the college to submit a proposal for regularisation of the first respondent who was appointed without following the prescribed selection procedure under UGC Regulations and University Ordinances.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.07.2021 in W.P.No.308 of 2014, and dismissed the writ petition. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.7773 of 2024 is closed.

Law Points

  • Public appointments must be made under Constitutional scheme
  • Regularisation cannot be granted for irregular appointments
  • UGC Regulations and University Ordinances govern teacher appointments
  • Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to regularise illegal appointments
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (01) 179

W.A.No.322 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.7773 of 2024

2026-01-12

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, S.SOUNTHAR

2026:MHC:218

Mr.R.Bharanidharan for appellant, Mr.T.Arun for Mr.R.Udhayakumar for R1, Mr.S.Ravichandran, Addl.Govt.Pleader for R2 & R3 HR&CE, Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, Govt.Advocate for R4 to R6

The Secretary, Arulmigu Palaniandavar College of Arts and Culture, Palani

S.Umarani, The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, The Secretary, Higher Education Department, The Director of Collegiate Education, The Joint Director of Collegiate Education

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ appeal against order directing regularisation of Assistant Professor

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the writ court order directing submission of proposal for regularisation of the first respondent

Filing Reason

Appellant contended that the writ court's finding of fit case for regularisation was contradictory to the direction to take a decision

Previous Decisions

Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.308 of 2014 dated 06.07.2021 directed the college to submit proposal to Higher Education Department for regularisation of the first respondent

Issues

Whether the appointment of the first respondent as Assistant Professor was irregular or illegal? Whether the writ court could direct regularisation of an appointment made without following UGC Regulations and University Ordinances?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the writ court's finding that the case is fit for regularisation is contradictory to the direction to take a decision, and that the appointment was illegal as it was made without advertisement or selection committee. First respondent argued that she had been working since 2002 and sought regularisation with monetary benefits.

Ratio Decidendi

An appointment made without following the prescribed selection procedure under UGC Regulations and University Ordinances is illegal and cannot be regularised. Regularisation cannot be granted for backdoor entries and is not a mode of appointment. The writ court cannot issue a direction to regularise an illegal appointment.

Judgment Excerpts

All public appointments are to be made under the Constitutional scheme of appointments and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Regularisation cannot be granted for an appointment which is illegal ab initio. The first respondent was appointed without any advertisement, without following the UGC Regulations and the University Ordinances, and without the approval of the University.

Procedural History

The first respondent filed W.P.No.308 of 2014 seeking regularisation. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 06.07.2021 directing the college to submit a proposal to the Higher Education Department. The appellant filed the present writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. The Division Bench heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 12.01.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 14, 16
  • Letters Patent of the Madras High Court: Clause 15
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Prohibitory Relief Against Construction Interference — Negative Relief Not Maintainable Under Article 226. Execution of Civil Decree Cannot Be Sought Through Writ Proceedings; Petitioner Deceased, L...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Judicature at Bombay Grants Assessee Eight Weeks to Prefer CESTAT Appeal Against Customs Order-in-Original Following Supreme Court Review on DRI Officers' Jurisdiction. DRI Officers Are Proper Officers Under Section 28 of the Customs Ac...