WP/28653/2023 of R.VIJAYARANGAN Vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY on 28 September 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to to call for the records of the 3rd respondent pertaining to the Show Cause Notice for Audit objections in No. F.1(C)/ Estt/ 2023/208 dated 05.05.2023, to quash the same as illegal, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent herein to in the post of Technical Officer with effect from 21.06.2017 along with all the attendant service and monetary benefits as per 7th Pay Commission recommendations with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned show cause notice dated 05.05.2023, issued by the 3rd respondent by and in which the petitioner was directed to the show cause as to why necessary further action should not be initiated against him for the irregular appointments.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned show cause notice has been issued solely on the basis of the audit objections raised by the local fund audit. He further submitted that, by virtue of various decisions of this Court, the local fund audit has no authority to interfere with the internal administration of a University. Therefore, any notice issued based on such local fund audit objections has no legal basis, and consequently, the same warrants interference by this Court. It is further contended that, in furtherance thereof, the petitioner is consequentially entitled to regularisation of his service

4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18020 of 2023 dated 30.04.2025, wherein the learned single Judge, relying upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench judgment, ultimately set aside the show cause notice. Hence, he prayed to allow the writ petition.

5. The said contention was vehemently opposed by the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent and he would submit that the appointment of the petitioner has to be done in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Syndicate resolutions, whereas the petitioner’s appointment was made by the Vice-Chancellor without following the rules which was subsequently brought to the notice of the University by the local fund audit.

6. He also contended that Ordinance 7 of the Statues Volume I, chapter XXIV Conditions of the Service of the Establishments of the University in the Madras University Act, 1857, mandates that any appointment or promotion shall be made by Syndicate only on the recommendation of its Establishment Committee. In this case, such procedure has not been followed and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner became irregular. He further submitted that the petitioner was given a show-cause notice and the issuance of show cause notice does not affect any civil rights of the petitioner so as to warrant the filing of a Writ Petition. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

7. The said contention was reiterated by the learned Additional Government Pleader and while reiterating the contention raised by the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent, he would submit that the appointment of the petitioner was not approved by the Governing Counsel of National Centre for Nano Science and Nano Technology (NCNSNT).

8. For ready reference, paragraph 4 of the counter-statement filed by the learned Additional Government Pleader is reproduced below “4. It is submitted that the said appointment was irregular since the selection committee was never approved by the Governing Council of National Centre for Nano Science and Nanotechnology (NCNSNT). As per UGC letter No.42-

6/2005(SU-1) dated September 2008, the National Centre for Nano Science and Nano technology (NCNSNT) is to be governed by (I) Executive Board (ii) Research Advisory Board, and (iii) Governing Council. The Governing Council, being the statutory authority is vested with academic, administrative and financial powers. Approval of the Governing Council for the Selection Committee is mandatory, and only thereafter could the University initiate permanent appointments, However, in this case, the Selection Committee was constituted solely by the Vice-Chancellor’s order dated 12.11.2014 without the approval of Governing Council of National Centre for Nano Science and Nanotechnology (NCNSNT), which has been specifically objected to in audit.”

9. The learned Additional Government Pleader further contended that the constitution of a selection committee is mandatory, and only thereafter, the University can initiate permanent appointment. In this case, such procedure has not been followed and the Vice Chancellor has directly appointed the petitioner and hence prayed to dismiss the writ Petition.

10. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

11. The sum and substance of the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel is that the appointment of the petitioner was neither in accordance with the norms of the National Centre for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology nor in accordance with the conditions of service of the Establishment of University in The Madras University Act, 1857. Though such contention was raised, the learned respondent counsels have not disputed the fact that though the petitioner was initially appointed on contractual basis, subsequently, he was appointed on 19.06.2015 as a Technical staff under a time scale of pay. He was placed on probation for a period of two years excluding any period spent on leave. It is also not disputed by the learned Additional Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has been in the sanctioned post in the time scale of pay Since 2015. However it was only in 2023, based upon the local fund audit inspection report, the impugned show cause notice was issued on 05.05.2023.

12. Now, let us consider the effect of the objections raised by the local fund audit in the administration of the University. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.224 of 2023 etc., batch dated 20.10.2023, particularly to paragraph 21, wherein it has been observed as follows:

21. The decision referred to above makes it clear as daylight that even if the state government is a body that funds the University, the state government cannot under the guise of auditing the accounts of the University, interfere with the internal administration of the University, which power of the University includes the power to make appointments as well as promotions. The other decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is Sushil Kumar Tripathi v. Jagadguru Ram Bhadracharya Handicapped University and Ors., [AIR 2021 SC 5702], wherein, in similar circumstances, under the UGC Plan, assurance was obtained from the University to maintain and take over the liability of these posts after the plan period of the UGC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the termination of the services of the appellant therein was incorrect and therefore, his services were to be continued as per the UGC plan. Further, in identical circumstances, in R. Soranam v. Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, in WP (MD) No. 3935 of 2012 decided on 20.09.2012 in respect of the very same UGC XI plan, this Court taking into consideration the guidelines of the UGC, which had stipulated that in order to get grant from the UGC, it is for the University to file an undertaking with respect to maintenance of the posts after the UGC XI Plan period, held that the University cannot after having benefited under the UGC plan and utilising the funds and grants made by the UGC, wriggle out of such an undertaking as was required under the guidelines of the UGC.

13. The aforesaid findings clearly manifest that the local fund audit has no role in the internal administration of the University. However, while perusing the counter statement of the 3rd respondent, it reveals that in pursuance of the local fund audit report, they find service irregularities in the appointment of the petitioner. Therefore, they issued the impugned notice as to why necessary action to be initiated against this petitioner for his illegal and irregular

appointment. This Court is of the firm view that the very issuance of such show cause notice to the petitioner seeking an explanation regarding an irregular appointment is without any legal basis and logically incorrect. Neither the local fund audit or any other authority has found any fault on the participation in the interview or the recruitment process. But the irregularity, if any was committed by the appointing authority. According to the opinion of this Court, when an irregularity was committed by an appointing authority, seeking an explanation from the candidate for merely participating in a recruitment process is entirely fallacious.

14. This Court is of the firm view that the very impugned show cause notice dated 05.05.2023 is not only illegal but also fallacious. Therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with. The learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18020 of 2023 dated 30.04.2025 has set aside the show cause notice. In view of the same, the impugned notice dated 05.05.2023 is set aside.

15. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as a consequence of the setting aside of the show cause notice, the petitioner seeks regularisation of his service. However, while looking into the factual position, it is evident that the petitioner was appointed only in a regular vacancy. Therefore, the question of further regularisation does not arise. However, as per the appointment order dated 19.06.2015, he was placed on probation for a period of two years. The learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent and the Additional Government Pleader submit that there are no proof available before this Court about the extension of the probation nor any rejection of the probation. It is relevant to mention that, as per the letter dated 28.08.2017, the respondent has given the petitioner, an overall performance rating as ‘satisfactory’.

16. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that in view of his continuous service since 2015, the probation of the petitioner is entitled to be declared and in this regard it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhola Nath vs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 129 and it is also relevant to mention that in W.A.No.1056 of 2015 dated 12.12.2023, it is highlighted that the Madras University has no statues governing the service condition of the employees of the Universities. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. If any monetary or service benefits are due to the petitioner, the respondent is directed to settle the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SHL

C.KUMARAPPAN J. SHL To:

1. The Principal Secretary, To Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-09.

2. The Director, Directorate of Local Fund Audit, Nandanam, Chennai-35.

3. The Registrar, University of Madras, Centenary Building, Chepauk, Chennai-05. WP No. 28653 of 2023 and WMP Nos. 28202 of 2023 and 15957 of 2026 28-09-2026