directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to conduct proper selection to the post of Registrar, University of Madras with valid Selection Committee and to consider the Petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of Registrar, University of Madras, based on merit in selection, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and thus render justice. Dated at Madurai, this the day of October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
AT MADURAI BENCH
[SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION]
W.P(MD). No. of 2025
Dr. R.Mohanraj,
S/o. S.A.Ramakrishnan (late),
No.3/720, A.K.Street,
Suthamalli,
Tirunelveli District – 627 404 Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009
2. The Convener/ Syndicate Committee,
University of Madras,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005
3. Dr. Rita John,
B-Block, Parso Towers,
6th Floor, Flat No.5, Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF Dr.R.MOHANRAJ
I, Dr. R.Mohanraj, S/o. S.A.Ramakrishnan (late), aged about 54 years, residing at No.3/720, A.K.Street, Suthamalli, Tirunelveli District – 627 404, now temporarily come down to Madurai, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
1. I am the Petitioner herein and hence I am well acquainted with the facts of the case.
2. I submit that I am hailing from Suthamalli village on the banks of Tamirabarani, Tirunelveli district and I belong to Scheduled Caste (SC) community. After my school education, I acquired B.A., (English) in Tirunelveli and M.A., (English) in Trichy and further qualified with SLET in 1999. I am further qualified with B.Ed., M.Phil., Ph.D., and I joined as Lecturer (English) in R.K.M.Vivekananda College, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Subsequently, I was elevated as Senior Grade and Selection Grade Lecturer. Thereafter, I was redesignated as Assistant Professor and promoted as Associate Professor.
3. I submit that since 2000 I have participated many programmes such as Seminars/ Workshops/ Conferences/ Community Services and rendering services for students to come up their life physically, mentally and morally.
4. I further submit that I have also acted as Member in the (a) Admission Committee constituted by Government of Tamil Nadu for the last 25 years. (b) Board of Studies Member in the Department of English. (c) Fine Arts Club Members. (d) Academic Council Member. (e) College Council Member. (f) Anti-ragging Cell Member. (g) Calendar Committee/ Sports Committee Member. (h) Grievance Redressal Committee Member (as per UGC norms). (i) Sexual Harassment Committee Member (as per UGC norms). (j) Member and Coordinator in the valuation of answer scripts camp/ committee. (k) Nodal Officer in SC/ST Cell as per UGC norms (senior most SC/ST teacher to be appointed).
5. I further submit that I have published about 19 Articles in the reputed Journals in National and International level. Further, I have written two Books and 3 Chapters in the Books. I have also delivered lectures/ attended workshops over skills programmes in several. Further, I have also acted as resources person in institution and rural background students.
6. I submit that based on the academic qualification and meritorious services in the field of education in various capacities, I have excelled both in teaching experience and administrative experience and hence I am qualified for selection and appointment to the post of Registrar of University.
7. I submit that the 2nd Respondent University of Madras issued Notification in the official website as well as in the newspaper inviting application for recruitment to the post of Registrar in the month of May 2025. Consequently, I submitted application in the prescribed format on 16.05.2025 with details and supporting documents. As per the application form, I have satisfied almost all the 28 credentials in Column-15 and submitted details enclosed with certificates and documents. Apart from that I have also given the details of International Articles and Books authored by me. Apart from that I am the senior most candidate having 24 years 10 months service as on the date of application.
8. I submit that 15 candidates have applied for the post of Registrar out of which 11 candidates finalised as eligible to participate in the interview including myself. I was issued with call letter dt.17.06.2025 to attend the interview to be held on 24.06.2025. The fact remains that out of 11 candidates, 9 candidates have been participated.
9. I submit that I appeared before the Interview Committee on 24.06.2025 and though I am the senior most person and my name was included in Sl.No.2 in the shortlisted candidates, the seniority was not followed in the interview. When I was called to interview as 4th candidate, the interview was lasted for just 5 minutes with formal questions about my qualification and experience and there was not even a single question relating to academic performance; excellence in administration; the credentials achieved in all the 28 points as indicated in the application. I was called to leave the interview hall within 5 minutes.
10. I submit that whereas, the interview was conducted for other candidates also only for shorter time, except for the 3rd Respondent Tmt.Rita John and for her the interview was lasted for 45 minutes. Therefore, on the face of it, the Selection Committee has not conducted the interview uniformly for all the candidates and the interview was conducted in a farcical manner which can be evidenced based on the video footage.
11. I submit that accordingly, the Selection Committee did not follow the Rules and Regulations and my testimonials and transcripts from the University have not been considered or verified. Consequently, based on the selection conducted by the Selection Committee, the 3rd Respondent is claimed to have been selected and appointed to the post of Registrar of University of Madras as per the orders issued by Convener, Syndicate Committee, the 2nd Respondent dt.27.06.2025.
12. I submit that the selection to the post of Registrar was conducted in a hasty manner. Based on the interview conducted on 24.06.2025, the appointment order is issued on 27.06.2025 without publication of marks secured by the candidates and finalised selection list. The appointment of 3rdRespondent as Registrar in the University of Madras was made in gross violation of Rules and Regulations of University of Madras and statutes. Even the Members of Syndicate of University of Madras have immediately submitted representation to the 2nd Respondent by referring to the large scale violations in the matter of selection process undertaken for the purpose of appointment of 3rd Respondent as Registrar in the University of Madras. I have also submitted a detailed representation to the 2nd Respondent on 27.06.2025 objecting to the appointment of 3rd Respondent as Registrar overlooking my eligibility, seniority as well as merit and ability based on records.
13. I submit that as per Section 12A of the Madras University Act, 1953, a Registrar shall be a whole time paid officer as University appointed by the Syndicate for such period and on such terms as may be prescribed by the statutes. As per Chapter-VII of statutes and Ordinances, “the Registrar shall be appointed by the Syndicate subject to the confirmation of the Senate”. Further, it shall be in the power of Syndicate to dispense with the services of the Registrar at any time and to discharge him from service without notice or compensation in the event of misconduct. Therefore, the Syndicate of the University is the appointing authority and disciplinary authority for the post of Registrar which remains to be a paid officer.
14. I submit that whereas, it is found that there was no approval or permission obtained from the Syndicate for the entire process of appointment of Registrar in gross violation of University Statutes. The fact remains that Thiru.C.Samayamoorthy, IAS was appointed as Convener of the Syndicate Committee in the absence of Vice Chancellor (VC) u/Sec.11(4) of the Act. The Syndicate is the only authority to authorise the Vice Chancellor/ Convener of the Syndicate Committee to act as the Chairman of the Interview Committee, but the same was not followed.
15. I submit that the composition of Selection Committee must be in accordance with the provisions of statute. As per the statute, the composition of Selection Committee Members stipulated as under:
(i) Vice Chancellor (Chairman)
(ii) Nominee of the Chancellor of the University of Madras.
(iii) An officer in the rank of Member Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu nominated by the State Government.
(iv) One former Vice Chancellor.
(v) One sitting Vice Chancellor.
Whereas, the composition of Selection Committee conducted interview for the post of Registrar is given as below:
As per statute Actual Committee
Vice Chancellor (Chairman) Mrs. Innocent Dhivya, IAS
Member of Syndicate Committee
Nominee of the Chancellor of the University of Madras Dr.R.Kirubakaran, Consultant Deep Ocean Mission (PC-6), National Institute Ocean Technology, Chennai.
Government nominee in the rank of Principal Secretary to Government Thiru.P.Anbuchezhiyan, Joint Secretary, Law Department.
One former Vice Chancellor Dr.G.Thiruvasagam.
One sitting Vice Chancellor Dr.G.Ravi
16. I submit that the Selection Committee conducted selection to the post of Registrar as stated above suffers serious discrepancies in violation of statutory provisions as follows:
(i) The Selection Committee for appointment of Registrar shall be headed by the Vice Chancellor as Chairman of Selection Committee. In the absence of Vice Chancellor, the Convener, Syndicate Committee viz., the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department will be the Chairman of Selection Committee. There is no delegation provision of Selection Committee Member on behalf of actual members is provided.
(ii) The Government nominee in the Selection Committee should be in the rank of Principal Secretary to Government, but the same has been violated and an officer in the rank of Joint Secretary to Government has been nominated for the Selection Committee.
Hence, the constitution of Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Registrar is entirely in violation of Rules and Regulations and hence the entire selection process is vitiated by errors of law.
(iii) Out of 9 candidates attended the interview, 5 candidates belong to SC community including the Petitioner. The following are the candidates who belong to SC community attended the interview.
(1) Dr. R.Mohanraj (Petitioner)
(2) Dr. T.Kanakaraj
(3) Dr. T.Parimelazhagan
(4) Dr. K.Pugazhendy
(5) Dr. G.Sudhandiran
Whereas, there was no SC nominee in the Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Registrar as prescribed by Government of India as per which it is mandatory that a Selection Committee must have an SC nominee when candidates belong to SC community participate in the selection.
It is settled law as per the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Hon’ble Court that any selection process conducted by Selection Committee in violation of composition of members as per the statutes is liable to be quashed.
17. I further submit that the 3rd Respondent Tmt. Rita John is the Syndicate Member from the year 2024. Whereas, when the Syndicate is the appointing authority for the post of Registrar and the 3rd Respondent being the member of the Syndicate has applied for the post of Registrar and participated in the selection. The fact remains that she has not even resigned from the post of Member of the Syndicate while applying for the post of Registrar and even thereafter. At the first instance, a Member of Syndicate cannot participate for selection to the post of Registrar even without resigning from the post of Syndicate member. Consequently, by virtue of holding the post of Syndicate member, the 3rd Respondent, based on the power and position, sought to be selected as Registrar and it suffers nepotism, favouritism and discrimination, violating the principles of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
18. I submit that there was no proper assessment of merit and ability for selection and appointment to the post of Registrar which can be borne out of records as well as the method of interview conducted by the Selection Committee. Therefore, the process of selection and appointment of 3rd Respondent as Registrar suffers violation of procedures established by law and the same is liable to be interfered with.
19. I submit that in the said circumstances, I am having no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court, invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the appointment of 3rd Respondent as Registrar of University of Madras as per the order issued by the 2nd Respondent dt.27.06.2025, for the following among other
GROUNDS
a) The impugned order of appointment of 3rd Respondent as Registrar of University of Madras passed by the 2nd Respondent is ex-facie arbitrary, illegal and against the law and the same is liable to be quashed in as much as the entire process of selection is vitiated by errors of law for violation of statutory provisions and the procedure established by law.
b) The composition of Selection Committee itself is not in accordance with law in as much as the Convener, Syndicate Committee in the place of Vice Chancellor (Chairman) has not chaired the Selection Committee and the member of Syndicate Committee appointed as Chairman of Selection Committee in the absence of provisions of delegation of authority under the statute.
(i) Whereas, the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, also the Convener, Syndicate Committee of Bharathiar University found part of the Selection Committee for the purpose of appointment of Registrar and Controller of Examinations. When it comes to the post of Registrar, University of Madras, the Selection Committee constituted in violation of Rules and Regulations.
(ii) When the Government nominee in the Selection Committee should be in the rank of Member Secretary to Government, the Joint Secretary, Law Department has been nominated as Government nominee for the Selection Committee and hence the entire composition of Selection Committee is illegal and against the law and the process of selection is vitiated by errors of law.
(iii)When 5 candidates have participated in the selection belong to SC community, there is no Member in the Selection Committee belong to Scheduled Caste, as required under law. Hence, the constitution of Committee is not in accordance with Rules and Regulations. Hence, the process of selection and the consequent appointment of 3rd Respondent as Registrar is liable to be interfered with.
(iv)The 3rd Respondent is Member of Syndicate of University of Madras from the year 2024 and Syndicate is the appointing authority to the post of Registrar, a paid officer of University. While so, the 3rd Respondent has participated for selection to the post of Registrar, as a Member of Syndicate, even without resigning from the said post. The appointing authority for the post of Registrar is not eligible to participate for the selection to the post of Registrar. She has not resigned from the post of Syndicate Member while submitting application for the post of Registrar and even thereafter.
(v) When the Member of Syndicate participated in the selection to the post of Registrar and based on her power and position, the entire process of selection suffers favouritism, nepotism, offending the Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
c) The discrepancy in the method of selection adopted by the Selection Committee is writ large on the face of records since the interview for the Petitioner was conducted for five minutes and other candidates also for short intervals whereas the 3rd Respondent remains in the interview hall for more than 45 minutes which can be evidenced and verification of CCTV footage of the interview hall.
d) The Petitioner is the senior most candidate participated in the selection who belongs to SC having rendered 24 years 10 months service as on date of submission of application meeting out and satisfy almost 25 points out of 28 points notified in the application, supported by all the credentials are supported by certificates and documents submitted along with application. Whereas, the merit and ability of the candidates including the Petitioner was not properly assessed by Selection Committee and there was no proper interview conducted that has resulted in violation of procedures established by law in order to favour the appointment of 3rd Respondent as Registrar.
20. This is the first Writ Petition filed by me for the relief as prayed in this Writ Petition and no other petition filed or pending before any other court.
21. I submit that the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has jurisdiction since the Petitioner has applied from Tirunelveli and came to know about his rejection at Tirunelveli and since the University of Madras is having jurisdiction over entire State of Tamil Nadu, the cause of action arose within the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Jurisdiction.
22. I submit that the original impugned order issued by the 2nd Respondent appointing the 3rd Respondent as Registrar, University of Madras in Official Communication No.VC-CC/D1/TE/2025/419 dt.27.06.2025 is not made available to me. Hence, I am filing the present Writ Petition by enclosing the photo copy of the same. Therefore, if the production of original impugned order issued by the 2nd Respondent dated 27.06.2025 is dispensed with, no one would be prejudiced.
Hence, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to DISPENSE WITH the production of original impugned order issued by the 2nd Respondent in Official Communication No.VC-CC/D1/TE/2025/419 dt.27.06.2025 and thus render justice.
23. I submit that in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is just and necessary to direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 2nd Respondent in Official Communication No.VC-CC/D1/TE/2025/419 dt.27.06.2025 and consequently directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to conduct proper selection to the post of Registrar, University of Madras with valid Selection Committee and to consider the Petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of Registrar, University of Madras, based on merit in selection, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
Hence, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant an order of INTERIM DIRCTION, directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 2nd Respondent in Official Communication No.VC-CC/D1/TE/2025/419 dt.27.06.2025 and consequently directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to conduct proper selection to the post of Registrar, University of Madras with valid Selection Committee and to consider the Petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of Registrar, University of Madras, based on merit in selection, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and thus render justice.
24. I submit that in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, in the interest of justice, it is just and necessary to stay the operation of impugned order issued by the 2nd Respondent in Official Communication No.VC-CC/D1/TE/2025/419 dt.27.06.2025, pending disposal of Writ Petition.
Hence, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant an order of INTERIM STAY staying the operation of impugned order issued by the 2nd Respondent in Official Communication No.VC-CC/D1/TE/2025/419 dt.27.06.2025, pending disposal of Writ Petition and thus render justice.
Hence, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 2nd Respondent in Official Communication No.VC-CC/D1/TE/2025/419 dt.27.06.2025 and to QUASH the same and consequently directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to conduct proper selection to the post of Registrar, University of Madras with valid Selection Committee and to consider the Petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of Registrar, University of Madras, based on merit in selection and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Madurai, {} Before Me
on this day of October 2025 {}
and signed his name in my {}
presence. {} Advocate::: Madurai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
AT MADURAI BENCH
[SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION]
W.P(MD).No. of 2025
Dr. R.Mohanraj …Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009 & others …Respondents
SYNOPSIS
i. The Petitioner, Dr. R. Mohanraj, hailing from Tirunelveli District and belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, is highly qualified with M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D., and SLET, joined as Lecturer (English) in R.K.M.Vivekananda College, Mylapore, Chennai, promoted upto the post of Associate Professor. He has extensive academic, administrative, and research experience, including publications and committee memberships.
ii. The University of Madras issued a notification in May 2025 inviting applications for the post of Registrar, to which the Petitioner applied, satisfying all eligibility criteria. Among 15 applicants, 11 were shortlisted and 9 attended the interview held on 24.06.2025.
iii. The Petitioner contends that the interview was conducted arbitrarily—his interview lasted only 5 minutes, whereas the 3rd Respondent, Tmt.Rita John, was interviewed for 45 minutes. The process lacked uniformity, transparency, and evaluation of academic or administrative credentials.
iv. It is alleged that the appointment order issued on 27.06.2025 was made hastily without publication of marks or Syndicate approval, violating the Madras University Act, 1953 and its statutes. Several Syndicate Members and the Petitioner submitted representations highlighting these irregularities.
v. The Petitioner asserts that the Selection Committee was illegally constituted — lacking the Vice Chancellor as Chairman, including an under-ranked Government nominee, and excluding a mandatory SC member despite SC candidates participating. Such deviation renders the entire process invalid in law.
vi. Further, the 3rd Respondent, a sitting Syndicate Member, participated in the selection without resigning, causing conflict of interest and violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Hence, the Petitioner seeks to quash her appointment as Registrar as being arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to statutory provisions.
DATES & EVENTS
DATES EVENTS
26.06.2024 List of Syndicate Members of University of Madras
May 2025 Appointment notification and application submitted by the Petitioner through online
27.06.2025 Impugned order issued by the 2nd Respondent appointing the 3rd Respondent as Registrar, University of Madras
27.06.2025 Representation submitted by the Members of the Syndicate
27.06.2025 Representation submitted by the Petitioner
02.07.2025 Newspaper report of appointment of 3rd Respondent as Registrar inspite of protest by Syndicate
Dated at Madurai, this the day of October, 2025
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
AT MADURAI BENCH
[SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION]
W.M.P(MD). No. of 2025
in
W.P(MD). No. of 2025
Dr. R.Mohanraj,
S/o. S.A.Ramakrishnan (late),
No.3/720, A.K.Street,
Suthamalli,
Tirunelveli District – 627 404 Petitioner/Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009
2. The Convener/ Syndicate Committee,
University of Madras,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005
3. Dr. Rita John,
B-Block, Parso Towers,
6th Floor, Flat No.5, Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 Respondents/Respondents
INTERIM DIRECTION PETITION
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant an order of INTERIM DIRCTION, directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 2nd Respondent in Official Communication No.VC-CC/D1/TE/2025/419 dt.27.06.2025 and consequently directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to conduct proper selection to the post of Registrar, University of Madras with valid Selection Committee and to consider the Petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of Registrar, University of Madras, based on merit in selection, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and thus render justice.
Dated at Madurai, this the day of October, 2025
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
