HoD's Post Can't Be Claimed As An Absolute Right: Madras HC Upholds State University's Amended Statute For Appointments On Rotational Basis

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar noted that the position was given as a designation and not a promotion to supervise the particular department. The bench added that the position did not alter the service conditions and thus could not be claimed as an absolute right by the professors.

“In the present case, the post of the Head of Department is given by way of designation only to supervise the particular department in a University. Admittedly, there is no alteration of service conditions nor any higher scale of pay has been fixed for the post of Head of the Department. In the absence of any alteration in the service conditions for the post of Head of the Department, the post cannot be claimed as an absolute right by the professors. None of the service conditions of the professors are infringed in pursuance to the amendment effected to the Statute 25, Chapter IX, Volume1,” the court said.

The bench also noted that the headship was provided to represent, regulate, and monitor the activities in the department and was not a promotion. The court emphasized that even promotions could not be claimed as a right and what could be claimed was only a right to be considered for promotion.

The court noted that such rotational designation of the HOD post would enhance the efficiency in a department and would provide equal opportunity to all senior professors in the Department who may have their own expertise, ideas and vision. The court also added that before the amendment, the Senior most professor held the post till his retirement or promotion to higher rank which would, in effect, deny the opportunity of other senior professors who are all eligible to be designated as HODs.

“The rationale behind the impugned amendment is apparent that all the eligible senior most professors in a department in the University shall be provided with an opportunity to serve as Head of the Department. Undoubtedly, such rotational based designation of Head of the Department would not only enhance the efficiency level in a department, but would provide equal opportunity to all senior professors in a Department,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Dr. Srinivasan, a professor in the Madras University who was designated as the Head of Department of Criminology. He challenged the amendment to the University Statute and argued that the same was in violation of Section 30 of the Madras University Act. he submitted that the procedure contemplated under the Section for making Statute was not followed as the opinion survey report was neither obtained nor circulated to the Senate members.

On the other hand, the University opposed the plea and submitted that the procedure contemplated under the University Act was scrupulously followed by both the Syndicate and the Senate and the resolution amending the Statute was approved by the Chancellor of Universities.

The court noted that the Syndicate, in its meeting had considered the opinion survey report from the Professors for rotation of headship and had passed the resolution which was duly approved by the Senate and assented by the Chancellor of University. The court also noted that at the Senate meeting also, the agenda was circulated. Thus, the court opined that the university had followed all the due procedures and that the impugned amendment did not violate any provisions of the Madras University Act.

Noting that the amendment brought the spirit of equal opportunity amongst all senior professors, and finding no acceptable or reasonable ground to interfere with the amendment, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Vijayakumar Senior Counsel For Mr. K. Prabakar

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. D. Ravichander Special Government Pleader

Case Title: Prof. Dr. M. Srinivasan v. The Chancellor of Universities and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 75

Case No: W.P.No.5862 of 2024