{"id":27637,"date":"2003-10-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-10-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003"},"modified":"2017-10-29T06:47:06","modified_gmt":"2017-10-29T01:17:06","slug":"mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003","title":{"rendered":"Mrs.S.Rosemary vs The Director Of Collegiate on 17 October, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Mrs.S.Rosemary vs The Director Of Collegiate on 17 October, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.          \n\nDATED: 17\/10\/2003  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN.          \n\nWRIT PETITION No.1891 of 1998   \n\nMrs.S.Rosemary.                                        ...Petitioner.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The Director of Collegiate\n  Education, College Road,\n  Chennai. 600006.\n\n2.The Joint Director of\n  Collegiate Education,\n  Vellore Region,\n  Vellore. 632 006.\n\n3.The Secretary,\n  Anxilium College,\n  Gandhi Nagar,\n  Vellore. 632 006.\n\n4.Sister Alphonsa Mary.                                 ..Respondents.\n\n\n                Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of\nIndia, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner                 ::  Mr.M.Muthupandian.\n\nFor Respondents 1 and 2                ::  Mr.R.Vijaya Kumar.\n\n\nMr.M.Joseph Mathew Jerome...  For Respondents   \n                                3 and 4.\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
                This  writ  petition  is  filed  for  a writ of certiorarified
\nmandamus to quash the order of the second respondent and to direct  the  third
\nrespondent  to designate the petitioner as Head of the Department of Chemistry
\nof the third respondent College.\n<\/p>\n
                2.The brief facts that are necessary for the  purpose  of  the
\ndisposal of the case is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                The petitioner joined as Lecturer of Chemistry on 17.6.1970 in
\nthe Auxilium  College  Vellore.    She  became the senior most Lecturer in the
\nDepartment in the year 1986.  But on that date, the Principal  Sister  Sesilee
\nThomas was  a  teaching staff in the Chemistry Department.  Therefore, she was
\nthe Head of the Department till her retirement on 14.6 .1993.  From  15.6.1993
\nthe present  Principal  by  name Alphonsa was appointed as the Principal.  She
\nwas working in a different college and she was junior to the  writ  petitioner
\nherein.   But  she  was  brought  to  this  college  and  was appointed as the
\nPrincipal of the College on the ground that since she  was  also  a  Chemistry
\nLecturer, she  was  designated  as Head of the Department.  But in fact as per
\nthe Rules, the senior most Lecturer in the Department should be designated  as
\nHead of  the  Department.    Therefore,the petitioner made a representation on
\n6.1.1994 to the Secretary, Auxilium College and also to  the  Regional  Deputy
\nDirector  of Collegiate Education to the effect that she being the senior most
\nLecturer in the Chemistry Department, she is eligible to be nominated as  Head
\nof the  Department.  That was rejected by an undated letter on the ground that
\nthe present Principal  Sister  Alphonsa  Mary  also  belonged  to  faculty  of
\nChemistry and  so, she automatically heads the Department of Chemistry.  Hence
\nthe question of nominating any one else as the Head of the Department does not
\narise.  Thereafter, writ petitioner made another representation  on  15.4.1995
\nto the  Commissioner  of Collegiate Education through proper channel.  In that
\nshe referred to G.O.Ms.No.1785 dated 5.12.1998 and as  per  the  G.O.,  senior
\nmost  Lecturer shall be nominated as Head of the Department and on that basis,
\nshe wanted her to be appointed as Head of Department of Chemistry.  For  that,
\na  reply  was  sent  by  letter  dated 13.1.1997 by the Director of Collegiate
\nEducation.  In that, it is stated that in so far as the  Chemistry  Department
\nof the  College,  the  seniority  list  has not been prepared.  Therefore, the
\nRegional Joint Commissioner of Education was directed to fix the seniority  in
\nthe Department  and  send  it to the Department.  Again on 17.6.1997 the Joint
\nCommissioner,  Collegiate  Education  wrote  a  letter  informing  that  since
\nAlphonsa  Mary,  who  is  the  Principal  is  also  a  Chemistry Graduate, the
\npetitioner cannot be designated  as  Head  of  Department.    Thereafter,  the
\npresent  writ  petition has been filed to quash the impugned order, the second
\nletter dated 17.6.1997.\n<\/p>\n
                3.A counter has been filed by the 4th respondent in  which  it
\nis  stated  that  the  College is a religious minority educational institution
\nestablished and administered by Roman Catholic Congregation of  the  daughters
\nof Mary  Help  of  Christians.    It  is purely a charitable and philanthropic
\ninstitution administering several schools.  The third respondent is not merely
\na private college.  It is an educational agency that runs it.  It entitles  to
\nthe protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and as defined in
\nSection  2(7)  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Private Colleges Act and the Rules framed
\nthereunder.  It does not receive cent per cent aid for all the staff and there
\nare several teaching and non teaching staff for which no aid is granted.   The
\nGovernment  is  empowered to frame Rules relating to service conditions of the
\nteachers and the other employees working in this college.  No rule restricting
\nthe  administrative  and  disciplinary  control  exercised  by  this  minority
\neducational agency  is  valid.  Any service conditions, which are violative of
\nArticle 30(1) of the Constitution of India are void and non  est  in  law  and
\nthey  cannot  be  enforced  against  minority  institution; only such of those
\nprovisions of the Act and Rules and other directions issued by the  Government
\nwhi  ch  are  not  violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India are
\napplicable to this College.  This follows G.O.Ms.No.1785 dated 5.12.1988 in so
\nfar as it is not detrimental to the minority rights guaranteed  under  Article
\n30(1).   The  Minority  Educational Agency has the right to choose and appoint
\npersons, who possess enough merit and ability and whose ideals , interests and
\nbeliefs are compatible with those of  the  institutions  and  the  educational
\nagency.   As  per  Rule 11 sub clause 4 and sub clause 1 of Tamil Nadu Private
\nColleges (Regulation) Act 1976, promotion in respect of teaching staff  should
\nbe  made on merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and
\nability are approximately equal.  This Rule is also subject to  Article  30(1)
\nof the Constitution.  The administrative control of the College vests with the
\nEducational  Agency  and  the  second respondent was also not empowered to fix
\nseniority among the staff of this college.  The 4th  respondent,  who  is  the
\nPrincipal  cannot under any circumstance be made to take instructions from the
\nwrit petitioner in the Chemistry Department and hence  selection  of  the  4th
\nrespondent  as Principal and the Head of the Department is perfectly valid and
\nin the interest of the administration of the  institution.    It  will  be  an
\nanomaly if the Principal of the College is to be subordinate to a staff member
\nof the Department to which she belongs.  The Principal as the natural guardian
\nof the  college is the natural Head of the Department.  If any attempt is made
\nto place the Principal subordinate to the Head of  the  Department,  it  would
\nresult  in  loss of status for the Principal which would violate Article 30 of
\nthe Constitution.  Further, the designation of the Head of the  Department  is
\nnot attached with any monetary benefit but is granted with lesser work load in
\nteaching hours.    As  such,  the  Principal  being  conferred  with  the said
\ndesignation of the Head of the Department would be more able to administer the
\ninstitution and the  Department  efficiently.    If  the  writ  petitioner  is
\ndesignated  as  Head  of  Department  of  Chemistry,  the college will have to
\nappoint another Lecturer to fill up the unmanned  working  hours,  which  will
\nresult in the loss to the college.  G.O.Ms.No.1785 is not binding on the third
\nrespondent college.    It  is  also  a convention in all the colleges that the
\nPrincipal is also Head  of  Department  to  which  he\/she  belongs.    In  the
\ncircumstances, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                4.   Learned  counsel  appearing  for the petitioner submitted
\nthat Clause 4 Sub Clause 7 of G.O.Ms.No.1785 (Education) dated 5.7.1988, reads
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “The  senior  most  person  in  the  Department  of   College,
\nirrespective  of  his Ph.D qualification will be nominated and designated as ”
\nSenior Lecturer\/Selection Grade Lecturer\/Reader and Head of Department” by the
\nDirector of Collegiate Education and that no special pay will  be  allowed  to
\nthat post”.\n<\/p>\n
Relying  upon this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
\nthat the post of the Head of Department  does  not  carry  even  any  monetary
\nbenefit  and it is only the designation as Head of the Department and that can
\nbe given only to the senior most Lecturer in the Department.  Admittedly,  the
\nwrit  petitioner  is the senior most lecturer in the Department and therefore,
\nshe should have been made as Head of Department of the  College.    Therefore,
\nthe  impugned  order  is liable to be set aside and the writ petition is to be
\nordered as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  Learned counsel appearing for  the  respondents  submitted
\nthat  as  far  as  the  minority  educational  institutions  is concerned, the
\nadministration shall  never  be  jeoparadised.    The   minority   educational
\ninstitutions  have  been  conferred  with  the  complete administration of the
\neducational institutions.  Even in  Tamil  Nadu  Recognised  Private  Colleges
\n(Regulation)  Act 1976, Section 17 provides that the Government may make rules
\nin consulation with the University regulating the  number  and  conditions  of
\nservice (including promotion, pay, allowances, leave, pension, provident fund,
\ninsurance  and  age  of retirement and rights as respects disciplinary matters
\nbut excluding qualifications) of the teachers and other  persons  employed  in
\nany private  college.  But there are decisions of the Supreme Court right from
\nthe date of Independence till today ending with  the  decision  in  “T.M.A.Pai
\nFoundation .  vs.   State  of  Karnataka  (2002)  Vol.8  S.C.C.  481 .  In the
\nlatest decision cited above of the Supreme Court by eleven Judges , the rights
\nto appoint teachers and right to appoint Headmasters of the school run by  the
\nminorities have  been  protected.    Since  it  includes  within  the ambit of
\nadministration  of  the  educational  institutions,  the   Government   cannot
\ninterfere with.    In  the  case  of  the  educational institutions run by the
\nminority  agencies,  the  appointment  of  Principal  or  Lecturer  cannot  be
\ninterfered with.   Learned counsel also submitted that the appointment of Head
\nof Department is also similar to appointment of the Principal.  Just like  the
\nPrincipal,  who  has  to  determine  and take important decisions, the Head of
\nDepartment also has to take important decisions with respect to  allotment  of
\nwork  and  making  policy  suggestions  and other important aspects which fell
\nwithin the ambit of administration.  One of the important duties of  the  Head
\nof  Department  is  to  allocate teaching hours to the faculty and prepare the
\nfaculty time table in consultation with the faculty members of the Department.
\nThe Head of Department has got the power to assess the work  of  the  teaching
\nstaff in  the  Department.    Therefore,  inasmuch  as  Principal also being a
\nChemistry Lecturer, her work may be assessed by the Head of  Department  which
\nmay be detrimental to the Institution.  The Head of Department can also refuse
\nleave to  her  own  Lecturer.    Therefore,  the Principal can also be refused
\nleave.  Inasmuch as the Principal is teaching in the  college,  the  Principal
\nalso must  be allocated with a time table and lecture hours.  If this power is
\ngiven to the Head of Department, the Principal would be made subord  inate  to
\nthe Head of Department and therefore, such an act would amount to interference
\nwith  the  administration and hence the petitioner cannot be appointed as Head
\nof Department.\n<\/p>\n
                6.Learned counsel submitted that the G.O conferred  the  power
\nto  designate  the  Head  of  Department on the Director of College Education,
\nwhich  is  not  also  permissible  as  it   amounts   to   interference   with
\nadministration.   Further,  G.O  contemplates  only  appointment  of  Head  of
\nDepartment, who is the senior most among the Lecturers.  But in this case, the
\nPrincipal was not the Lecturer in the Department.  She cannot be considered as
\none among the Lecturers and she is above them  and  therefore,  her  seniority
\ncannot be  compared with the seniority of the writ petitioner.  Therefore, the
\nchoice of Head of  Department  cannot  be  taken  away  from  the  educational
\ninstitutions.   In  support  of  this,  the  learned  counsel  relied upon the
\ndecision in ” St.Xaviers College .vs.  State of Gujarat”  (A.I.R.1974  Supreme
\nCourt,1389)  wherein  paragraph  103  refers  to  choice  of  the Teachers and
\nparagraph 183 refers to choice  of  the  Principal.    Relying  upon  the  two
\nparagraphs in the judgment, the learned counsel submitted that with respect to
\nthe  appointment  of  Lecturers and the appointment of Principal, the Minority
\nEducational Agency has got absolute power.  This cannot be taken away  in  the
\ncase of  the  appointment  of Head of Department.  Further,the learned counsel
\nreferred to another aspect.  Though the post was vacant from 1993 onwards, the
\nwrit petition was filed only in 1998 and therefore, on the  ground  of  laches
\nalone, the  writ  pet ition is liable to be dismissed.  For all these reasons,
\nthe learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner  is  not
\nentitled to  the relief as prayed for.  Further, the learned counsel submitted
\nthat this petitioner has already retired from service  on  30.9.2003  and  her
\nservices  are  extended  till  30.5.2004 till the end of the academic year and
\npresently she is employed under  re-employment  basis  till  30.5.2004.    Her
\nService Register  has  already  been  completed.  Her pension papers have also
\nbeen sent and therefore, the prayer cannot be allowed for these reasons also.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  The argument with respect to the assessment of the work of
\nthe Principal, which may be made by the Head of Department  and  the  argument
\nthat  the  Head  of Department may refuse to grant leave for the Principal are
\nfar fetched.  By no stretch of imagination such a situation can be  concieved.
\nIt  is  also seen that in the “Role of functions of the Head of Department” of
\nthe Auxilium College, under the head ‘ Faculty Competence’, it is stated  that
\nthe Head  of Department is available to the Principal.  Therefore, the Head of
\nDepartment cannot on any day over-ride the  authority  of  the  Principal  and
\ncannot act against the interest of the Principal in the administrative matters
\nincluding  the  preparation of time table, granting of leave and assessment of
\nthe work  of  the  Principal  as  a  Lecturer  of  the  Chemistry  Department.
\nTherefore,  this  argument  of  the  counsel  for the petitioner has no force.
\nHence it is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  On the question of laches,  counsel  for  the  respondents
\nrelied  mainly  on  the ground that the Principal was appointed from 16.6.1993
\nand the Principal was also acting as the Head of Department.    But  no  other
\nperson was designated as Head of Department.  The writ petition has been filed
\nin the year 1998.  Therefore, on the ground of laches of more than 4 years the
\nwrit petition  deserves to be dismissed.  This argument of the learned counsel
\nfor the respondents is not acceptable in view of the fact that the  petitioner
\nhas  written  a letter as early as 6.1.1994 itself and thereafter she has been
\ncorresponding continuously through the College with  the  Director  of  School
\nEducation.   Earlier  a letter was sent by the Government rejecting her claim.
\nOn further representation subsequently another order,  which  is  impugned  in
\nthis writ  petition  was passed in the year 1997.  The non challenging of 1995
\nyear order does not in any way prevent the  petitioner  from  challenging  the
\npresent  impugned  order  as  the  petitioner was corresponding to change that
\norder.  Further, in “T.M.A.Pai Foundation .vs.  State of Karnataka” ( (2002) 8
\nSupreme Court Case 481), the Supreme Court has categorically held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                “Q.5(c) Whether the statutory provisions  which  regulate  the
\nfacets  of administration like control over educational agencies, control over
\ngoverning bodies, conditions of affiliation including recognition\/  withdrawal
\nthereof,   and  appointment  of  staff,  employees,  teachers  and  principals
\nincluding their service  conditions  and  regulation  of  fees,  etc.    would
\ninterfere with the right of administration of minorities?\n<\/p>\n
                A.   So  far as the statutory provisions regulating the facets
\nof administration are concerned, in case of an  unaided  minority  educational
\ninstitution,  the  regulatory  measure  of  control  should be minimal and the
\nconditions of recognition as well  as  the  conditions  of  affiliation  to  a
\nuniversity  or board have to be complied with, but in the matter of day-to-day
\nmanagement, like the appointment of  staff,  teaching  and  non-teaching,  and
\nadministrative  control  over them, the management should have the freedom and
\nthere should not be any external controlling  agency.    However,  a  rational
\nprocedure  for  the  selection  of  teaching staff and for taking disciplinary
\naction has to be evolved by the management itself.\n<\/p>\n
                For redressing  the  grievances  of  employees  of  aided  and
\nunaided  institutions  who  are  subjected  to  punishment or termination from
\nservice, a mechanism will have to be evolved, and in our opinion,  appropriate
\ntribunals  could  be  constituted,  and  till  then,  such  tribunals could be
\npresided over by a judicial officer of the rank of District Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                The State  or  other  controlling  authorities,  however,  can
\nalways  prescribe  the  minimum qualification, experience and other conditions
\nbearing on the merit of an individual for being appointed as a  teacher  or  a
\nPrincipal of  any  educational institution.  Further regulations can be framed
\ngoverning service conditions for teaching and other  staff  for  whom  aid  is
\nprovided  by  the  State,  without interfering with the overall administrative
\ncontrol of the management over the staff”.\n<\/p>\n
The latest verdict of the Supreme Court as stated  above  would  clearly  show
\nthat  the  regulations  can  be  framed  for  governing service conditions for
\nteaching and other staff promotion and designation of the post is also one  of
\nthe service conditions.\n<\/p>\n
                9.The  Division  Bench  of  this  Court  in “The Principal and
\nSecretary Madras Christian College East Tambaram, Madras 59 and  another  .vs.
\nDr.  (Mrs.) M.Shams and another” (2001 (2) CTC 84) has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                “Therefore  in  the  light  of  the  said pronouncement having
\naccepted the grant subject to the  conditions,  and  the  post  being  only  a
\ndesignated  one  which has to be done by the Director of Collegiate Education,
\nit follows that the first appellant herein is bound  to  follow  the  rule  of
\nseniority as  has  been  ordered  in  this  case.    Hence, we do not find any
\ninfirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge and we  also  hasten
\nto add that it is unnecessary to go into any other contentions”.\n<\/p>\n
                10.In   this   case   the   Division   Bench   has  held  that
\nG.O.Ms.No.1785 dated 5.12.1988 is not applicable to the  minority  educational
\ninstitutions.  Without going into the aspect as to whether this decision could
\nbe  valid  after  the  decision in T.M.A.Pai Foundation case (2002 (8) Supreme
\nCourt Cases 481) and even assuming that this decision is correct and the  G.O.
\nis  not  applicable to the minority educational institutions, still this court
\nin the same judgment has held that the office of the Head of Department  being
\nonly  a  designated  one  and  which  has  to  be  done  by the Directorate of
\nCollegiate Education, the minority educational institution also  is  bound  to
\nfollow the  rules  of  seniority.  Therefore, the Auxilium College is bound to
\nfollow the rules of seniority.\n<\/p>\n
                11.Learned counsel appearing  for  the  respondents  submitted
\nthat  the  decision  in 2001(2) CTC 84 was given by the Division Bench relying
\nupon the decision of the Supreme Court in “Unni Krishnan, J.P .vs.   State  of
\nA.P.”  (A.I.R.1993  SC  2178);  Inasmuch  as  Unni  Krishnan’s  case  has been
\nover-ruled by the Supreme Court in (T.M.A.Pai) 2002(8) SCC 48 1, this decision
\ncannot be said to be correct and  the  decision  has  to  be  ignored.    This
\nargument of  the  learned counsel for the respondents is not acceptable.  Unni
\nKrishnan’s  case  was  referred  to  in  this  case  only  with   respect   to
\nadministrative control  of  the educational institution.  Further, the Head of
\nthe Department is not a promotional post.  It does not carry any special  pay.
\nOnly  the  senior  most  person  is  to be nominated and designated as Head of
\nDepartment.  Therefore, inasmuch  as  this  designation  of  the  senior  most
\nfaculty  member  as  Head  of Department, which does not involve any financial
\ncommitment, the benefit cannot be denied to the person, who  is  actually  the
\nsenior most  in  the faculty of Chemistry.  Learned counsel mainly relies upon
\nthe fact that earlier the former Principal Sister Sesilee Thomas was Principal
\nas well as Head of Department of the Chemistry.  Therefore, when the Principal
\nbelongs to a faculty,  that  Department  does  not  require  another  Head  of
\nDepartment.   In  that  case, the Principal was also the senior most Lecturer.
\nTherefore, the question of appointing the next senior most Lecturer as Head of
\nDepartment did not arise.  But in the present  case,  admittedly  the  present
\nPrincipal  was junior to the writ petitioner and she was working in some other
\ninstitution under the control of educational agency and she was transferred to
\nthe Auxilium college and made as a  Principal.    Therefore,  as  between  the
\npresent incumbent namely Sister Alphonsa Mary and Rosemary the petitioner, the
\nseniority in the Chemistry Department plays a vital part.  Therefore, inasmuch
\nas  the writ petitioner Rosemary is the senior most faculty member, she should
\nhave been designated as Head of Department from the date when sister  Alphonsa
\nMary was appointed as Principal.\n<\/p>\n
                12.The  exaggerated  concept  of  ‘Minority Rights’ enunciated
\nover  enthusiastically  during  1950  which  created  a  myth  that   minority
\nEducational  Institutions  based  on language or religion are above law of the
\nland and cannot be regulated by any law was rightly discarded  by  the  recent
\nEleven Judges’  Bench  of the Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation Vs.  State
\nof Karnataka ((2002)8 Supreme Court Cases 481); earlier there was  an  opinion
\nthat  the  minority  institutions  are  not  bound  by any of the regulations.
\nLater, by number of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, the law  relating
\nto  service,  Labour,  etc.,  were  extended; by the latest pronouncement, the
\nSupreme Court has held all those minority institutions  which  receives  grant
\nfrom  the  government  are bound to obey all the rules made by the Government.
\nThat is except for such of those matters which directly affects the Management
\nof the institution, all other acts including the service  regulations  can  be
\nregulated by  law.    Nominating  the  senior most lecturer as the Head of the
\nDepartment does not in any way interfere with the right of the  Management  of
\nthe educational  institutions.   The Supreme Court has also categorically held
\nthat appointment of Principal  cannot  be  regulated  except  for  prescribing
\nstandards and  qualifications.  Similarly appointment of lecturers also cannot
\nbe interfered with.    But,  once  appointed,  they  are  bound  to  obey  the
\nregulations with  respect  to service matters made by law.  Making regulations
\nrelating to nomination of Head  of  the  Department  cannot  be  equated  with
\nappointment  of  Principal or appointment of Lecturer or admission to students
\nwhich alone can be said to be matters relating to administration.   Therefore,
\nnominating  a Senior most lecturer in a faculty as Head of the Department does
\nnot  interfere  with  the  administration  of  the  Educational  Institutions.
\nTherefore,  the  fact  that  the  Director  of  Collegiate  Education has been
\nempowered with fixing of seniority or nominating Head of the Department cannot
\nbe said to be an interference with the administration.  In fact, there  is  no
\nseniority  list  in  the Chemistry Department in this College and as seen from
\nthe communication sent by the Director of Collegiate Education; that shows how
\nthe rules framed by the Government  even  with  respect  to  ordinary  matters
\nrelating  to  services  like  fixing  of  seniority  has been disobeyed or not
\nfollowed by the minority educational institutions.  It is high time  that  the
\nminority  educational institutions change their mind and attitude and obey the
\nlaws made by the Legislature and Parliament in letter and spirit.\n<\/p>\n
                13.The mere fact that the writ petitioner has already  retired
\nfrom  service  on 30.9.2003 and she is now in extended service till the end of
\nthe academic year, does not in any way affect the right of the  petitioner  to
\nbe designated  as  Head  of  Department.    By no stretch of imagination, this
\ndesignation of the writ petitioner as Head of Department can be said to affect
\nthe administration of the Educational Institution.  Therefore, the  petitioner
\nherein   shall   be  designated  as  the  Head  of  the  Chemistry  Department
\nretrospectively from the date on which Sister  Sessilee  Thomas  retired  from
\nservice.\n<\/p>\n
                14.In  the result, the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for.
\nNo costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nWebsite:Yes  <\/p>\n
nyr<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Director of Collegiate
\nEducation, College Road,
\nChennai.  600006.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Joint Director of
\nCollegiate Education,
\nVellore Region,
\nVellore.  632 006.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Secretary,
\nAnxilium College,
\nGandhi Nagar,
\nVellore.  632 006.\n<\/p>\n
4.Sister Alphonsa Mary.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Mrs.S.Rosemary vs The Director Of Collegiate on 17 October, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS. DATED: 17\/10\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN. WRIT PETITION No.1891 of 1998 Mrs.S.Rosemary. …Petitioner. -Vs- 1.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai. 600006. 2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Vellore Region, Vellore. 632 […]<\/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-27637","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMrs.S.Rosemary vs The Director Of Collegiate on 17 October, 2003 - 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\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs.S.Rosemary vs The Director Of Collegiate on 17 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-29T01:17:06+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\\\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs.S.Rosemary vs The Director Of Collegiate on 17 October, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-29T01:17:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3854,\"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\\\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003\",\"name\":\"Mrs.S.Rosemary vs The Director Of Collegiate on 17 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-29T01:17:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs.S.Rosemary vs The Director Of Collegiate on 17 October, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Mrs.S.Rosemary vs The Director Of Collegiate on 17 October, 2003 - 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\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs.S.Rosemary vs The Director Of Collegiate on 17 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-29T01:17:06+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\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs.S.Rosemary vs The Director Of Collegiate on 17 October, 2003","datePublished":"2003-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-29T01:17:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003"},"wordCount":3854,"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\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003","name":"Mrs.S.Rosemary vs The Director Of Collegiate on 17 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-29T01:17:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-s-rosemary-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-17-october-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs.S.Rosemary vs The Director Of Collegiate on 17 October, 2003"}]},{"@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\/27637","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=27637"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27637\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}