{"id":222165,"date":"2006-11-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006"},"modified":"2017-06-21T18:19:13","modified_gmt":"2017-06-21T12:49:13","slug":"madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"Madurai Kamaraj University vs A.Sundara Mahalingam on 4 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Madurai Kamaraj University vs A.Sundara Mahalingam on 4 November, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 04\/11\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\n\nWrit Appeal (MD) Nos.369 of 2006\nWrit Appeal (MD) Nos.370 and 386 of 2006\n\n\n1.Madurai Kamaraj University,\n  rep.by its Vice-Chancellor,\n  Madurai-625 021.\n\n2.The Registrar,\n  Madurai Kamaraj University,\n  Madurai-625 021.\t\t    ... \tAppellants 1 and 2 in all \t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tthe writ appeals.\n\n3.The Selection Committee,\n  Rep.by its Chairperson,\n  The Vice-Chancellor,\n  Madurai Kamaraj University,\n  Madurai-625 021.\t\t    ... \tAppellant No.3 in\n\t\t\t\t\t\tWrit Appeal No.386 of 2006\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\nvs.\n\n\nA.Sundara Mahalingam\t\t    ... \tRespondent in all the<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\twrit appeals.\n<\/p>\n
Writ Appeal No.369\/2006: Writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against
\nthe Order of the learned Single Judge, dated 25.07.2006, made in W.P.(MD)No.3668
\nof 2006.\n<\/p>\n
Writ Appeal No.370\/2006:  Writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against
\nthe Order of the learned Single Judge, dated 25.07.2006, made in
\nW.P.(MD)No.11053 of 2006.\n<\/p>\n
Writ Appeal No.386\/2006: Writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against
\nthe Order of the learned Single Judge, dated 22.09.2006, made in W.P.(MD)No.7880
\nof 2006.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n!For Appellants in\t\t...\tMr.R.Muthukumarasamy,\nall the appeals\t        \t...\tSenior counsel for\n\t\t\t\t   \tMr.S.Sethuraman\n\n\n^For Respondent in\t\t...\tMr.S.Natarajan\nall the appeals\n\n\n:COMMON JUDGMENT\n\n\nG.RAJASURIA,J\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t\tA resume of the previous proceedings, as stood exposited from the
\nrecords, could be portrayed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(a)Sundara Mahalingam, an official of Madurai Kamaraj University,
\nthe respondent in the appeals, was working on the administrative side of the
\nMadurai Kamaraj University for a pretty long time and ultimately he rose to the
\nlevel of Superintendent-I.  He acquired Ph.D. qualification during the year
\n1992.  It appears, he wanted to be a faculty in Madurai Kamaraj University i.e.,
\nthe appellant University, by switching over from administrative side to academic
\nside.  Since he experienced some difficulty in getting himself inducted as a
\nfaculty member, he filed the writ petition in W.P.No.2197\/2001 with the
\nfollowing prayer:\n<\/p>\n
\t“…. to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the
\nrecords of the respondents relating to the selection in pursuance of the
\nnotification No.R-34VC\/2000 and R\/37\/VC\/2001 issued by the second respondent
\n21.12.2000 and 11.1.2001 published in Indian Express dated 26.12.2000 and
\n16.1.2001 respectively in so far as the School of Energy is concerned and quash
\nthe same and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner in the
\npost of Lecturer in Bio-Energy, Department of School of Energy, where he is
\nalready working, as provided by the Syndicate resolution dated 4.3.96 and the
\nmemorandum of agreements dated 7.4.89 and November 1999.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(b)In the course of hearing in the above writ petition, it appears
\nthat the learned counsel who appeared for the University made submission, which
\nwas recorded by the Court, and it runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“…. Learned counsel appearing for the University would submit that if
\nthe writ petitioner gives a representation seeking the relief of absorption and
\nif he satisfies the UGC norms (UGC prescribed norms for such posts), then, the
\nUniversity will have no difficulty at all in absorbing the writ petitioner. …”\n<\/p>\n
Ultimately, on 12.09.2005, the Court in the said writ petition ordered thus:
\n\t“Validity of the advertisement is not gone into, since it is withdrawn.
\nthe writ petitioner is permitted to give a representation to the University
\nseeking absorption in the post mentioned above.  If the writ petitioner
\nsatisfies the norms prescribed by the UGC for the said post, the respondents,
\nwho have told this Court by their learned counsel, would consider the said
\nrepresentation and pass orders on it, in any event, not later than 30 days from
\nthe date of receipt of such representation.  If the writ petitioner is aggrieved
\non the order directed to be passed by the University, it is open to him to
\napproach the competent forum for appropriate relief.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(c)It appears, the University sent the communication, dated
\n31.10.2005, calling upon the respondent to attend an interview before the
\nSelection Committee for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Bio-Energy,
\nSchool of Energy, Environment & Natural Resources at 11.30 a.m. on 11th
\nNovember, 2005 at the Syndicate Room, Madurai kamaraj University.  However, the
\nrespondent absented himself from attending the said interview, even though he
\nwas the only candidate called upon to attend the interview for the above said
\npost.  Thereupon, the University by its communication, dated 16.11.2005,
\nrejected the representation of the petitioner, dated 05.10.2005, to absorb him
\nin the academic side as a Lecturer.  Obviously, the respondent filed writ
\nPetition (MD)No.11053\/2005 with the following prayer.\n<\/p>\n
\t“… to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or such other writ,
\ndirection or order in the nature of writ by calling for the records of the
\nrespondents relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo
\nNo.MKU\/LC\/Estt.Case\/2005, dt.16-11-2005 and quash the same and consequently
\ndirect the respondents to pass suitable order for absorbing the petitioner as
\nLecturer, ont he representation given by the petitioner dt.05-10-2005, as
\ndirected by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.2197\/2001 dated 123.09.2005 ….”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(d)Subsequently, the respondent Sundara Mahalingam also filed one
\nother writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.3668 of 2006 with the following prayer.:
\n\t“…. to issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction or order
\nin the nature of writ by calling for the records of the respondents relating to
\nthe impugned notification dated 21.07.2006 issued by the second respondent as
\npublished in the Newspaper New Indian Express dated 01.02.2006 and quash the
\nsame in so far as the posts covered in S.No.1, 2, 3 and 4 ….”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(e)Thereupon, both the writ petitions, namely W.P.(MD)Nos.11053\/2005
\nand 3668\/2006 were taken up for hearing by the learned Single Judge and passed
\nthe common order on 25.07.2006. The operative portion of it runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“14.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, both the
\nwrit petitions are ordered in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t1.The respondent University shall constitute the Selection Committee in
\naccordance with the norms prescribed by U.G.C. within a period of 15 days from
\nthe date of receipt of a copy of this order;\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The writ petitioner is directed to appear before the Selection
\nCommittee, to be constituted by the respondent University, for the post of
\nlecturer in Bio-Energy Department;\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The Selection Committee shall consider the qualification and other
\neligibility criteria of the petitioner for the post of lecturer in the
\ndepartment of Bio Energy by taking into consideration the order passed by this
\nCourt in W.P.No.2197 of 2001 dated 12.09.2005 and also the other qualifications
\nand expertise acquired by the petitioner in the teaching side from the year 1997
\nto ill date in the department of Bio Energy and recommend for appointment on
\nsuch compliance;\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The impugned notification dated 27.01.2006 issued by the respondent
\nUniversity in so far as it relates to Sl.No.2, Advertisement No.R\/84\/Dean (E&D),
\nBio-Energy Department for the post of lecturer alone is set aside.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(f)Being aggrieved by the said common order, the University filed
\nWrit Appeal Nos.369 and 370 of 2006.  However, even before the filing of the
\nwrit appeals by the University as aforesaid, the respondent Sundara Mahalingam
\nfiled another writ petition in W.P.No.7880\/2006 with the following prayer.
\n\t“…. to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or such other writ,
\ndirection or order in the nature of writ by calling for the records relating to
\nthe impugned proceedings of the Madurai Kamaraj University as issued by the<\/p>\n
2nd respondent in ref.No.Memo.No.MKU\/VC\/ Lect.Appt.\/2006 dated 28.08.2006 and
\nquash the same and issue suitable directions to absorb in the post of lecturer
\nwith back wages and all service benefits …..”.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Single Judge on 22.09.2006 passed orders allowing the writ petition
\nby observing and directing as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“8.Therefore the non-selection of the petitioner on the ground that he has
\nnot answered the questions during the interview cannot be a valid reason in the
\nfacts and circumstances of this case, particularly when the petitioner is aged
\n57 years and has been working as Lecturer in the Department of Bio-Energy from
\n22.7.1997, without any complaint or deficiency in conducting classes.  Even in
\nthe counter affidavit nothing is stated about the performance of the petitioner
\nin the Department of Bio-Energy.  hence the impugned order is declared as
\nillegal.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for.  the impugned
\norder is quashed and the respondents are directed to absorb the petitioner as
\nLecturer as he is fully qualified to hold the post of Lecturer as per the UGC
\nnorms.  Orders to the above effect shall be passed by the second respondent
\nwithin a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
\n…”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(g)Aggrieved over the said order, the University also filed
\nW.A.(MD)No.386 of 2006.  As such, before this Bench, three writ appeals, namely,
\nW.A.(MD)Nos.369, 370 and 386 of 2006 are pending.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2.Heard both sides in entirety.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3.The nitty-gritty, the gist and kernel, the warp and woof of the
\ncase of the respondent Sundara Mahalingam is to the effect that he should be
\nabsorbed as such without he being tested relating to his suitability, namely\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)aptitude for teaching and research.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)Ability to communicate clearly and effectively.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)Ability to analyse and discuss.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4.Per contra, the University would contend that adherence to U.G.C.
\nnorms includes testing the respondent Sundara Mahalingam’s aforesaid three
\nqualities also.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5.Hence, in these circumstances, the following point arises for
\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
\twhether the respondent could be absorbed as such without being tested
\nrelating to his aptitude for teaching and research, ability to communicate
\nclearly and effectively and ability to analyse and discuss, for the post of
\nlecturer?\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6.The main thrust of the argument of the learned Advocate appearing
\nfor the respondent is to the effect that the University is estopped from
\nconducting interview so as to test the respondent’s aptitude for teaching and
\nresearch, ability to communicate clearly and effectively and ability to analyse
\nand discuss, in view of the learned Advocate for the University having submitted
\nbefore this Court in W.P.No.2197\/2001 to the effect that the respondent herein
\nwould be absorbed if he would be found satisfying the UGC norms and that the
\nUniversity would have no difficulty at all in absorbing him; for which, the
\nlearned senior counsel appearing for the University would submit that the
\noperative portion of the order of this Court, dated 12.09.2005, passed in
\nW.P.No.2197\/2001 would in no way states so and that the respondent should
\nsatisfy all the UGC norms, including the interview meant for testing the
\naptitude for teaching and research skill, ability to communicate clearly and
\neffectively and ability to analyse and discuss.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7.The perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge, dated
\n12.09.2005, in W.P.No.2197 of 2001, would show that the said order did not give
\nany carte blanch to get himself absorbed in the post of lecturer merely by
\nproducing his educational credentials.  The said order would contemplate that
\nthe respondent herein should satisfy the UGC norms and subject to that alone he
\ncould be taken as lecturer by the University.  It is quite obvious that the
\nUniversity is governed by the mandates of the University Grants Commission and
\nit cannot opt out of it.  At this juncture, it is worthwhile to refer to the UGC
\nnorms, which are available in the typed set of papers and an excerpt from it is
\nextracted herein for ready reference.\n<\/p>\n
\t“The process of selection should involve the following:-\n<\/p>\n
\ta)Assessment of aptitude for teaching and research.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)Ability to communicate clearly and effectively.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)Ability to analyse and discuss.\n<\/p>\n
\td)Optional: Ability to communicate may be assessed by requiring the
\ncandidate to participate in a group discussion or by exposure to a class room
\nsituation\/lecture, wherever it is possible.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8.The unassailable and indubitable fact is that the Selection
\nCommittee, as per UGC norms should comprise of high level academicians and the
\nselection committee for the post of University Lecturer should be on the
\nfollowing pattern.\n<\/p>\n
\t“At the University level, all selections must be done within the system
\nwith the Vice Chancellor as the Head of the Selection Committee.\n<\/p>\n
\t1.The Vice Chancellor to be the Chairperson of the Selection Committee.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.Three experts in the concerned subject to e invited on the basis of the
\nlist recommended by the Vice Chancellor and approved by the Executive
\nCouncil\/Syndicate.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.Dean of the concerned Faculty\/ Head\/Chairperson of the Department.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.An academician nominated by the Visitor\/Chancellor.
\n\tThe quorum should be four, out of which at least two outside subject
\nexperts must be present.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9.The detailing and delineation of the facts in the previous
\nproceedings before the learned Single Judges would express and expatiate that
\neven though the respondent initially refused to participate in the interview,
\nsubsequently he participated in the interview but he objected for questions
\nbeing put to him by the Selection Committee. His bone of contention is that the
\nselection committee was competent only to verify his documents containing his
\nqualifications and nothing more.  The core question arises as to why for
\nverifying certificates and degrees, such a high level selection committee should
\nbe constituted at all and  it is quite obvious that such verification of the
\ncertificates, is only a clerical job.  The term ‘UGC norms’ connotes,  the
\n‘entire UGC norms’ prescribed for selection.  The respondent herein cannot call
\nupon the Court to truncate the procedure to his own benefits and apply only a
\npart of the UGC norms and leave the rest.  The perusal of the UGC norms would
\nleave no doubt in the mind of the Court that such norms are meant for recruiting
\nreally worthy personnel as lecturers in the University and necessarily
\nsuitability should be tested by adhering to the process contemplated in the UGC
\nnorms by the Selection Committee for selecting any one for the post of lecturer.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10.The respondent herein would project himself as an experienced
\nperson in the academic field by contending that he was virtually transferred
\nfrom the administrative side of the University to the academic side and  work
\nwas extracted from him as Lecturer for a pretty long time and that it was too
\nlate in the day as well as an after thought on the part of the  University, in
\nveering round and taking pleas quite antithetical to such realities and contend
\nas though the respondent should undergo suitability test as per UGC norms.  To
\nbuttress and fortify, to support and strengthen his contention, he would rely on
\nthe Memorandum No.177\/Estt.\/1\/Dt.30.05.1997 of the University, which forms part
\nof the typed set and demonstrates that various administrative officials were
\nposted on the academic side and also the Memorandum No.Estt.\/Admn.\/1\/97, dated
\n22.07.1997,  would read that the respondent herein, who was working at thattime
\nas Superintendent (D), Demand Draft Section, was transferred to the Department
\nof Bio-Energy, School of Energy, Environment and Natural Resources. The scrutiny
\nof the memorandum, dated 22.07.1997, would show that the respondent herein was
\ndirected to work under the directions of the Head of the Department concerned.
\nIt is pertinent and relevant to note that the said communication in no way
\nappointed the respondent herein as lecturer in the Department of Bio-Energy,
\nSchool of Energy, Environment and Natural Resources.  But, it only mandated that
\nhe should work under the directions of the Head of the department concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11.During arguments it transpired that despite such transfer the
\nrespondent herein was not paid salary on par with lecturers, for which the
\nlearned counsel appearing for the respondent would try to expound and explain,
\nthat for such non-extension of lecturers’ pay scale to the respondent, he cannot
\nbe found fault with.  It is not the question of quantum of money that matters
\nbut the circumstances would matter much.  Had really the respondent herein been
\nappointed as lecturer or treated as lecturer, he would have been placed in the
\nscale of pay of lecturer.  The very fact that the respondent did not insist for
\nthe lecturer scale and that the University also did not place him in the
\nlecturer scale, would speak volumes that he was simply transferred from the
\nadministrative side to the academic side with no assurance that he would be
\nabsorbed automatically by considering only his educational qualifications.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12.During arguments it also came to limelight  that it has become a
\ntrait proposition of law that whenever any such post is lying vacant, it should
\nnot be filled-up by way of an internal selection, as that would offend the
\nrights of the outsiders who are fully qualified and suitable to occupy such
\nposts.  Be that as it may, at this stage, we do not want to ponder over that
\npoint as much water has flown under the bridge and at present the factual
\nposition here is that the University has decided to conduct interview only for
\nthe respondent herein.  But the University simply and solely, primarily and
\nparamountly insist that the respondent should satisfy the suitability test as
\ncontemplated under the UGC norms set out supra.   The learned Advocate for the
\nrespondent would try to carry conviction with this Court by his persuasive
\nargument relating to his plea that such interview would be an empty formality
\nand in all probabilities the respondent would be rejected as unsuitable in view
\nof the respondent having engaged himself in litigative battle with the
\nUniversity all along.  The learned senior counsel for the University would
\ncorrectly torpedo such argument by stating that the University is, day in and
\nday out, facing all such sort of litigations and they in no way were perturbed
\nor prejudiced by the litigations initiated by the respondent herein as against
\nthe University.  We are of the opinion that simply because the respondent herein
\nwaged a litigative battle as against the University, which had temporarily made
\nit to meet with its waterloo, there is no presumption that the University
\nauthorities would bear grudge as against their own staff, the respondent herein,
\nif he is otherwise suitable for the post of lectureship.  We also specifically
\nrecord herein that the University authorities shall deal with the respondent
\nwith open mind.   More over, the selection committee comprises
\nof various academicians from outside the University also.  Hence in this view of
\nthe matter, the contention raised on the side of the respondent cannot be
\ncountenanced.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13.The learned Single Judge in the common order, dated 25.07.2006,
\nwould consider that the respondent herein is working on the teaching side in the
\nDepartment of Bio-Energy and that he possesses all the required qualifications
\nfor appointment as a lecturer which job he has been doing ever since 1997 and
\naccordingly treated his case as an “individual case and cannot be clubbed with
\nany other regular appointment to be made for the post of lecturer in the
\nUniversity”.  We are not in agreement with the said finding  for the reason that
\nthere is absolutely  no basis for treating his case as an ‘individual case’.
\nThe Court cannot mandate the University to treat any case as an ‘individual
\ncase’ when the UGC norms, without mincing words by its directions, contemplate
\nthat any one who would be appointed as lecturer should satisfy the suitability.
\nThe learned Single Judge concentrated only on the qualification of the
\nrespondent but not the suitability which the Court cannot assess but only the
\nSelection Committee by putting questions could and should assess the aptitude
\nfor teaching and research, ability to communicate clearly and effectively and
\nability to analyse and discuss, of the candidate.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14.Similarly, the learned Single Judge in the order dated 22.09.2006
\nin Writ Petition No.7880\/2006, following the common order dated 25.07.2006
\npassed in the previous proceedings by the earlier learned Single Judge, felt
\nthat such an order of the Court should be implemented because there was no
\nappeal against the order, dated 25.07.2006.  Now then, the University filed two
\nappeals, namely W.A.(MD)NOs.369 and 370 of 2006, challenging the common order
\ndated 25.07.2006 and in such view of the matter, the subsequent order dated
\n22.09.2006, which reiterates the previous order, dated 25.07.2006, cannot held
\nto be having any independent approach to the problem.  In fact, the learned
\nSingle Judge, in the order dated 22.09.2006 went to the extent of mandating as
\nunder.\n<\/p>\n
\t“…. the respondents are directed to absorb the petitioner as Lecturer as
\nhe is fully qualified to hold the post of Lecturer as per the UGC norms.  Orders
\nto the above effect shall be passed by the second respondent within a period of
\neight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ….”\n<\/p>\n
The aforesaid extract of the order would tantamount to issuing appointment order
\nitself by the Court, which, in catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
\ndoes not confirm.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15.On the appellants’ side, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
\nreported in (1998) 6 SCC 538 (Uptron India Ltd.  vs.  Shammi Bhan and<\/a> another)
\nhas been cited to highlight the point that wrong concession made by counsel on a
\nquestion of law would have no binding effect on his client.  Our discussion
\nsupra relating to the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2197 of 2001,
\ndated 12.09.2005, would show that in fact there was no concession given by the
\nlearned counsel for the University and the court also did not act upon it, but
\nthe court order is clear to the effect that UGC norms should be adhered to.  As
\nhas been correctly highlighted in the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment referred to
\nabove, even for any reason such representation before the learned Single Judge
\nhas to be treated as a concession given by the learned Advocate for the
\nUniversity, yet it would not bind the University.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t16.The learned Advocate for the respondent herein would cite the
\ndecision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported AIR 1979 SC 681 (M.P.Sugar Mills  v.
\nState of U.P.) so as to stress upon the point that doctrine of promissory
\nestoppel would be operative even as against the University.  To the risk of
\nrepetition, we would highlight that by making representation before the learned
\nSingle Judge in W.P.No.2179\/2001, the learned Advocate for the University did
\nnot usher in the doctrine of promissory estoppel in favour of the respondent.
\nThe litigation already started between the respondent herein and the University,
\nlong before such representation, alledgedly imbued with concession.  In such a
\ncase, by no stretch of imagination or any presumption or assumption, the
\nprinciple of estoppel could be pressed into service by the respondent herein.
\nIn the typed set of papers as well as from the arguments advanced by the learned
\nAdvocate for the respondent herein, we could see no law, rule or regulation in
\nsupport of the respondent that on his possessing certain educational
\nqualifications to become a lecturer, he should necessarily be absorbed as a
\nlecturer.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t17.Hence, in this view of the matter, all the three writ appeals are
\nallowed and common order, dated 25.07.2006, passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.11503\/2005 and
\n3668\/2006 and the order dated 22.09.2006 passed in W.P.(MD)No.7880\/2006 are set
\naside.  Connected M.P.(MD)No. 2 of 2006 in W.A.(MD)No.370\/2006 and M.P.(MD)No.1
\nof 2006 in W.A.(MD)No.386 of 2006 are closed. \tHowever, during arguments, we
\nsensed that the University is even now willing to constitute a Selection
\nCommittee so as to enable the respondent herein to appear before it so that he
\ncould prove his suitability by answering the questions that would be put to him
\nby the experts of the Selection Committee.  Hence, we are of the opinion that
\nconsidering the over all circumstances involved in this case, the respondent
\ncould be given one more opportunity of appearing before the Selection Committee.
\nWith this in mind, we direct that the University shall make arrangements for the
\nconstitution of the Selection Committee, which shall, strictly in accordance
\nwith the UGC norms, test the suitability of the respondent by putting
\nappropriate questions, for which the respondent herein is bound to answer.  We
\nalso stress that the University shall deal with this matter with open mind
\nuntrammeled by the bitter experience, if any the University had  in view of the
\nlitigation initiated by the respondent herein as against the University.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t18.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall
\nbear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
gb.\n<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.The Vice-Chancellor,
\n   Madurai Kamaraj University,
\n   Madurai-625 021.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Registrar,
\n  Madurai Kamaraj University,
\n  Madurai-625 021.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Madurai Kamaraj University vs A.Sundara Mahalingam on 4 November, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04\/11\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.369 of 2006 Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.370 and 386 of 2006 1.Madurai Kamaraj University, rep.by its Vice-Chancellor, Madurai-625 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-222165","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMadurai Kamaraj University vs A.Sundara Mahalingam on 4 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madurai Kamaraj University vs A.Sundara Mahalingam on 4 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-21T12:49:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madurai Kamaraj University vs A.Sundara Mahalingam on 4 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-21T12:49:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3924,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006\",\"name\":\"Madurai Kamaraj University vs A.Sundara Mahalingam on 4 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-21T12:49:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madurai Kamaraj University vs A.Sundara Mahalingam on 4 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Madurai Kamaraj University vs A.Sundara Mahalingam on 4 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madurai Kamaraj University vs A.Sundara Mahalingam on 4 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-21T12:49:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madurai Kamaraj University vs A.Sundara Mahalingam on 4 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-21T12:49:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006"},"wordCount":3924,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006","name":"Madurai Kamaraj University vs A.Sundara Mahalingam on 4 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-21T12:49:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madurai-kamaraj-university-vs-a-sundara-mahalingam-on-4-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madurai Kamaraj University vs A.Sundara Mahalingam on 4 November, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222165","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=222165"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222165\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222165"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222165"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222165"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}