'Madras University Losing Its Reputation Rapidly, Erring Officials Must Be Dismissed From Service': High Court

The Madras High Court recently expressed its dismay over the rapidly declining reputation of the Madras University, and observed that disciplinary proceedings must be instituted against errant officials for not maintaining absolute integrity and devotion to duty.

The remarks were made by a division bench of Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice A.A. Nakkiran after it noted irregularity in the process for appointment of Assistant Librarians in the University.

While Assistant Librarian is a Feeder Category, meant only for Direct Recruitment, the Court noted that Respondents no. 2 and 3 were promoted to the said post 'wantonly to satisfy somebody' and departmental proceedings must be initiated against the University Registrar for bringing disrespect to the institution.

"Of late, it is painful to record here that the University of Madras now-a-days loses its reputation in a rapid manner...It is apposite to mention here that appropriate disciplinary proceedings for capital punishment shall be initiated against the concerned Officials for not maintaining absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a member of the service and such irresponsible Officials should be dismissed from service and their dereliction should be entered into their Service Register, so that their promotions and other benefits should be deprived," it added.

Background

The Bench was hearing a writ appeal against a single judge bench order allowing promotion of a technical officer (R1 herein) possessing M. Phil to the post of Assistant Librarian. The other two respondents in the writ appeal (R2 and R3), belonged to the Scheduled Castes Community and their promotion to the post of Assistant Librarian were ratified by the Syndicate as early as April 2013.

Before the single-judge bench, R1 contended that promotion of four juniors to the post when he, a Senior, was fully qualified, was illegal and arbitrary. If the stand of the University was that the post is not promotional in nature, then it should have issued a proper notification/ advertisement, submitted R1.

The appellant University contended that R1 was a re-designated technical officer who adopted the tactics to obtain the disputed post via promotion, when originally, the post could be filled only through direct recruitment. In the affidavit, the University conceded that the post of Assistant Librarian is not a promotional post, and there was some blunder perpetrated in the previous administrative process that they would rectify.

When the University preferred a writ appeal against the order for promotion of R1, R2 and R3 (other appointees to the post), contended that they were called for an interview based on their representation; they were appointed to the post pursuant to that process. The writ petitioner cleared the NET examination much later than both R2 and R3, rendering them seniority over the former. Therefore, their appointments shouldn't be disturbed, argued the counsels for R2 and R3.

Findings

The Court observed that the University has flouted the regulations by regarding the disputed post as promotional. The bench observed that UGC Regulations and the Standing Regulations of the University of Madras does not treat it as a promotional post and it could have been filled only through Direct recruitment as per the then existing service conditions.

It noted that technical wing and library wing are completely different as per the Rules, and Assistant Librarian is the Feeder Category that can be filled only through direct recruitment.

About the appointment of R2 and R3, the court observed that though both of them are qualified for the post, they cannot be appointed on the basis of resolution passed in the Syndicate Meeting unless and until there is a direct recruitment process in consonance with rules and regulations of UGC. Therefore, the court termed their appointments as 'perpetuated illegality'.

It added that when the promotion of R2 and R3 itself is bad, the impugned order of the Single Judge in granting promotion to the R1 on par with R2 and R3 is equally not justified and is liable to be set aside.

Before parting, the Court expressed anguish over the illegality committed by the University Administration by not inviting candidates for direct recruitment through notification/ advertisement.

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment