Madras HC quashes professor's plea challenging headship rotation in University of Madras, upholds amendment

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court upheld the amendment made in the statute that governs the rotation of headship of the departments in the University of Madras, which was also accepted by the Chancellor of Universities, the Governor of Tamil Nadu.

While dismissing a plea of a professor challenging the amendment, a division bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar held that it does not violate provisions of the Madras University Act but

brings the spirit of equal opportunity amongst all senior professors who belong to the homogeneous clause.

M Srinivasan moved the HC seeking to quash the amendment made in the statute under section 56 of the Madras University Act, 1923, regarding the rotation of headship of departments in the university.

The petitioner submitted that in 2012, he was promoted as a professor of the criminology department at the university; later, by virtue of his seniority, he was designated as the head of the department.

On February 14, 2023, a resolution was passed in the syndicate meeting amending the statute after considering the opinion survey report obtained from the professors of the department for the rotation of headship, which was accepted, and the rotation will be executed based on the performance and merit of the professors of concerned departments rather than seniority. The senate of the Madras University also approved the resolution in its annual meeting, and later, the Chancellor of Universities also consented to the amendment.

Such was the position in which the petitioner assailed the amendment and moved the petition. Senior counsel S Vijayakumar for the petitioner submitted that no opinion survey report had been obtained nor circulated to the senate members. Therefore, the entire procedure followed for amending the statute violates section 30 of the Madras University Act.

After the submission, the bench refused the contentions and wrote that as per the pre-amended statute, once a senior professor was designated as head of a department, he would hold the post till his retirement or be promoted to a higher rank; this would result in the denied opportunity to other aspiring senior professors.

The bench rejected to quash the amendment as it brings merit and performance in place of seniority for appointing the head of a department as the position not only holds teaching but also acts as a guide, mentor and contributor for the development in imparting better education to the students to mould them to be a good citizen, held the bench.