The Madras High Court upheld the amendment of Statute 25 in Chapter IX, Volume 1, University Calendar 2016 with regard to the rotation of the Headships in the Madras University Departments and observed that the amendment would ensure equal opportunity to all Senior Professors, who may also possess expertise, ideas, vision, etc.

The Writ Petition was filed before the High Court against the amendment with regard to the rotation of the Headships in the Madras University Departments as per Resolution No.75 dated February 14, 2023 of the Syndicate and approval of the Senate of the University of Madras as assented by the Chancellor of Universities as illegal and ultra vires to the Madras University Act, 1923.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar, held, “The impugned amendment does not violate any of the provisions of the Madras University Act, but it brings the spirit of equal opportunity amongst all senior professors, who belong to homogeneous clause.”

Senior Counsel S. Vijayakumar represented the Petitioner, while Special Government Pleader D.Ravichander represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner joined as a Lecturer in the year 2000 in the Department of Criminology of Madras University. He was promoted to the post of Professor in July, 2012 and by virtue of his seniority, he had been designated as the Head of the Department of Criminology as per the Statute 25 in Chapter IX, Volume 1, University Calender, being a Statute framed under Section 56 of the Madras University Act, 1923 The Syndicate of Madras University passed a resolution amending the Statute 25 and held that the rotation of Headships of the Departments of University, be executed based on the performance and merit of the professors of concerned Departments.

The Senate of the Madras University approved the said resolution of the Syndicate in its annual meeting. The Chancellor of the Universities assented to the said amendment, which was communicated by the Deputy Secretary to the Governor (U) of Tamil Nadu. Thus, the present writ petition came to be instituted, challenging the said amendment.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that as per the impugned amendment, Professors in a department shall be the Head of the Department on rotation, based on the performance and merit of the Professors of concerned department. The objectives which can be culled out from the amendment is to provide opportunity to all meritorious professors in a department in the University to hold the post of the Head of the Department, to avoid stagnation amongst the senior professors and to provide equal opportunity to hold the post of Head of the Department on rotational basis.

“Head of the Department is a designation and not a promotion”, the Bench said and also explained that Statute 25 contemplates that all other professors, readers and lecturers, if any shall work under the direction of the professor and the Head of the Department concerned with the subject, and shall assist him in the performance of his duties as defined.

“Headship is provided to represent, regulate and to monitor the activities in the department. It is not a promotion, admittedly. Even promotion per se cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the teaching or non-teaching staff. Consideration for promotion alone is a right”, it added.

As per the Bench, there is no alteration of service conditions nor any higher scale of pay that 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.

The Court also held, “When service conditions for the post of professors are not altered and designation of Head of the Department has been conferred on merits and on rotation basis to avoid stagnation and discrimination amongst the senior professors, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the amendment brought-in to Statute 25 in Chapter IX, Volume 1, University Calender 2016 stating that the professors in a department shall be the Head of the Department on rotation, based on the performance and the merit of the professors of the concerned department.”

The Bench highlighted that the Statute contemplates not only seniority but also merit, and the impugned amendment was brought in to improve the efficiency level in a department and to ensure equal opportunity to all Senior Professors, who may also possess expertise, ideas, vision, etc. “Therefore, the impugned amendment was brought-in to improve the efficiency level in a department and to ensure equal opportunity to all Senior Professors, who may also possess expertise, ideas, vision, etc.”, the Bench held.

Thus, finding no reason or acceptable ground to interfere with the impugned amendment brought into Statute 25, Chapter IX, Volume 1, University Calender, the Bench dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: Prof. Dr.M.Srinivasan v. The Chancellor of Universities (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:492)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Counsel S.Vijayakumar, Advocate K.Prabakar

Respondent: Special Government Pleader D.Ravichander, Advocate V.Sudha

Click here to read/download Order


Madras High CourtJustice S M SubramaniamJustice K Rajasekar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.