Madras High Court
WP(MD)/16379/2026 of Bhuvaneswari R Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 27 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 16379 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD) No. 16379 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010778322026}
AND WMP(MD) No. 12217 of 2026
Bhuvaneswari R
Assistant Professor in Zoology
Head of the Department in Zoology
Seethalakshmi Achi College for Women
Pallathur – 630107, Sivagangai District
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Secretary
Department of Higher Education
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600009
2. The Director of Collegiate Education
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education No. 268, Palam Station Road Sellur, Madurai- 625 002
4. The Secretary
Seethalakshmi Achi College for Women,
Pallathur - 630 107 Sivagangai District
5. The Principal
Seethalakshmi Achi College for Women
Pallathur - 630 107, Sivagangai District
6. H. Faritha Begum
Assistant Professor in Zoology
Seethalakshmi Achi College for Women Pallathur
- 630 107, Sivagangai District
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page 1 of 6
( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:52 pm )
WP(MD) No. 16379 of 2026
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent Joint Director in Oo.Mu.No.4550/Aal/2026 dated 08.06.2026
(received on 11.06.2026), directing the 5th respondent to appoint the 6th respondent as HOD of Zoology Department in the 4th respondent college and all proceedings in furtherance thereof quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner(s)
Mr K.Ragatheesh Kumar
for M/s. Isaac Chambers
For Respondent(s)
Mr.G.Mohan Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R3
Mrs.Meenakshi for R4 and R5
Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan for R6
ORDER
The order dated 08.06.2026 passed by the third respondent, the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai, is challenged in this Writ Petition. By the impugned order, the third respondent found fault with the manner in which the petitioner was appointed as the Head of the Department of Zoology on 13.04.2026, when the vacancy arose only on 31.05.2026. The third respondent has also observed that seniority has to be determined in accordance with the roster system. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 08.06.2026, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, raising the following grounds: __________
Page 2 of 6
( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:52 pm )
WP(MD) No. 16379 of 2026
(i) The roster system cannot be relied upon for determining seniority in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 604 [Bimlesh Tanwar’s Case).
(ii) According to the petitioner, seniority has to be determined on the basis of merit, and the petitioner secured 20 marks, whereas the sixth respondent secured only 19 marks. The third respondent has relied upon the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, dated 08.10.2018, which, according to the petitioner, are contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimlesh Tanwar’s Case. Therefore, the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education, dated 08.10.2018, cannot be relied upon.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon Section 17 of the Private Colleges Regulation Act, submits that only the Government is competent to frame guidelines, rules or notifications prescribing the service conditions of teachers. Therefore, the Director is not the competent authority under Section 17 to issue such directions, and the same cannot be relied upon. He further submits that the impugned order has disturbed the petitioner’s appointment as Head of the Department __________
Page 3 of 6
( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:52 pm )
WP(MD) No. 16379 of 2026 (HOD) without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence the same is liable to be interfered with.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner was appointed as Head of Department even before the vacancy arose. Therefore, based on the complaint lodged by the sixth respondent, an enquiry was conducted, pursuant to which the Joint Director, by the impugned order, directed the Principal to appoint the Head of the Department in accordance with law.
4. The learned counsel for the sixth respondent submits that, though the petitioner was appointed on the same date as the sixth respondent, viz., on 21.02.2014, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications. He submits that the petitioner obtained the M.Phil. and M.Sc. degrees simultaneously and, therefore, the degrees cannot be treated as valid. Moreover, the petitioner had specialised only in Microbiology and not in Zoology. Therefore, the very appointment of the petitioner is improper. However, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent makes it clear that the sixth respondent is not seeking any relief with regard to the validity of the petitioner’s appointment as such. The dispute raised by the sixth respondent concerns the manner in which the petitioner was appointed as __________
Page 4 of 6
( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:52 pm )
WP(MD) No. 16379 of 2026 Head of the Department, without considering the claim of the sixth respondent, who asserts that she is senior to the petitioner. He further disputes the petitioner’s claim that she secured 20 marks and submits that the sixth respondent is senior to the petitioner. It is contended that, without considering the claim of the sixth respondent, the petitioner was appointed as Head of the Department in a hurried manner, even before the vacancy arose. He also points out that the petitioner’s appointment was approved only on 30.06.2015, whereas the appointment of the sixth respondent was approved in the year 2014 itself.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. The impugned order has the effect of disturbing the petitioner’s appointment as Head of the Department without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Head of the Department on 10.04.2026, with effect from 01.06.2026. While disturbing the petitioner’s appointment, in all fairness, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided to her. Further, the petitioner and the sixth respondent have raised several allegations against each other, which also require consideration by the competent authority. __________
Page 5 of 6
( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:52 pm )
WP(MD) No. 16379 of 2026
7. In view of the above, the impugned order of the third respondent dated 08.06.2026 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the third respondent, the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai, for fresh consideration. The third respondent shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the sixth respondent and the management, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No mbi __________
( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:52 pm )
WP(MD) No. 16379 of 2026 To
1. The Secretary Department of Higher Education Fort St.George, Chennai - 600009
2. The Director of Collegiate Education College Road, Chennai - 600 006
3. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education No. 268, Palam Station Road Sellur, Madurai- 625 002 __________
( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:52 pm )
WP(MD) No. 16379 of 2026 B.PUGALENDHI, J. mbi WP(MD) No. 16379 of 2026 27-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:52 pm )
Page 6 of 6
Loading citations and judicial treatment…