WP/11411/2024 of K.ULAGANATHAN Vs THE REGISTRAR IN-CHARGE on 28 September 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, challenging the impugned order University Order No.194/2024 (C2) dated 15.03.2024 by and in which the appointment of the petitioner as Technical Assistant (Lib) was cancelled and reverted as Office Assistant.

WP No. 11411 of 2024

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, without following 10 + 2 + 3 pattern, had obtained B.A. degree from Annamalai University though its Open University stream, without attending 12th grade. Thereafter, he was appointed as Technical Assistant (Lib) in Annamalai University on 16.02.2009 and his services were subsequently regularised with effect from 20.06.2011. In the meantime, following the takeover of the University by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the respondent issued a show- cause notice on the pretext that the petitioner did not possess the required qualifications, and consequently reverted him from the post of Technical Assistant to Office Assistant. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that such reversion is contravention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department reported in 2009 (4) SCC

590.

3. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a Hob’ble Full Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.02.2026 in the case of Murugesan v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and two others in W.A (M.D) No.462 of 2014 etc and batch of cases, held that appointments made prior to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department (i.e., 25.02.2009) are protected. In this case, the petitioner was initially

WP No. 11411 of 2024

appointed on a contractual basis on 16.02.2009, which predates the said Supreme Court judgment, though his services were regularised later on 20.06.2011. Therefore, he would contend that his reversion order is liable to be set aside.

4. The said contention was totally objected by the learned standing counsel and would contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered its judgment in Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department on 25.02.2009. Therefore, the cut off date has to be determined as 25.02.2009 for validating Open University degrees obtained without the mandatory 10+2+3 pattern. In this case, though the petitioner's initial contractual appointment was on 16.02.2009, which was subsequently extended on a year-to-year basis, his regular appointment was only on 20.06.2011, which is well after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 25.02.2009. Therefore, the petitioner cannot find any infirmity in the impugned reversion order.

5. In support of his contention, the learned standing counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) the Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board and another vs. Kanimozhi reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 4933; and (ii) T.L.Muthukumar and five others v. The Registrar General High Court,

WP No. 11411 of 2024

Madras and another reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 209; He also relied upon the order of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P No. 25757 of 2023 etc., batch of cases dated 28.03.2024.

6. I have given my anxious consideration on either side submissions.

7. Though the learned standing counsel for the respondent relied upon various judgments as stated supra, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Full Bench in the case of Murugesan v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and two others in W.A (M.D) No.462 of 2014 etc and batch, has dealt elaborately, particularly in paragraph 31 and 32, it is observed as below:

31. To sum up, from the date of judgment rendered in Annamalai University case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (i.e., 25.02.2009), the persons possessing pre-foundation and Foundation certificates as equivalent to 10th and 12th standard, are ineligible for any appointment or promotion.

32. Those, who were already appointed or promoted before the date of this judgment shall not be disturbed. However, they cannot have the advantage of the pre-qualification certificate and qualification certificate for further promotion from that date onwards.

WP No. 11411 of 2024

8. As per the observation made in the above Full Bench judgment, any appointment or promotion, which had already been done prior to the date of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (i.e., 25.02.2009), the same is protected. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the petitioner was appointed initially on 16.02.2009 which is prior to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (i.e., 25.02.2009). Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned order is in contravention to the observation made by the judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 is set aside and the petitioner’s seniority is directed to be restored to the original seniority as a Technical Assistant (Lib) along with all consequential benefits sans monetary benefits.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SHL

WP No. 11411 of 2024

C.KUMARAPPAN J. SHL To: The Registrar In-charge Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District. WP No. 11411 of 2024 and WMP Nos. 12519 and 12523 of 2024 28-09-2026