In such view of the matter, this court is of the view that the present writ petition, which challenges the appointment of the Registrar of the University of Madras is only maintainable before the Principal Bench and that the Principal Bench has to deal with the matter. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to denumber the writ petition and after obtaining appropriate orders from the Hon’ble Administrative Judge, transfer the case to the Principal Bench at Madras. 19.11.2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.11.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.(MD).No.28795 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.22387, 22388 & 22389 of 2025
Dr.R.Mohanraj …Petitioner
-Vs1. The State of TamilNadu,
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 …Respondents
Prayer in WP(MD).No.28795 of 2025 : Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent in official communication No.VCCC/D1/TE/2025/419 dated 27.6.2025 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.
For petitioner : M/s.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
ORDER
Preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the writ petition does not disclose any cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of this Court, as the petitioner himself is working at Chennai and he has filed the petition only at Chennai.
2. On contrary, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the petitioner, being a native of Tirunelveli, had made an application from Tirunelveli and had also viewed the result only from Tirunelveli. Therefore, according to him, a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.
3. It is relevant to refer the judgement of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of E.Mary Oliviya vs E.Jsohua Milton reported in 2008 7 MLJ 1012, wherein this court had formulated the principles governing the jurisdiction of the Permanent Bench at Madurai.
The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:
”42.From the above discussion and analysis of various, provisions and decisions of several courts, including the Supreme Court, our conclusions as follows:
(1) Establishment of a Permanent Bench has the effect of bifurcation of the State into two for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court between the Principal Bench at Chennai and the Permanent Bench at Madurai.
(2) The District Courts and all other Courts inferior to that of the District Courts are subordinate to Madras High Court irrespective of its place of sitting.
(3) Appeal or Revision can be filed before the Principal Bench at Chennai or Permanent Bench at Madurai depending upon the situs of the Court against whose decision the Appeal or Revision is sought to be filed. An appeal or revision against the decision of a Court situate within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Chennai has to be filed before the said, Principal Branch whereas the appeals and revisions arising from the orders of Courts coining within the districts earmarked for the permanent Bench at Madurai have to be filed at Madurai.
(4) Writ petitions can be filed before the Principal Bench at Madras or Permanent Bench at Madurai depending upon the place where the cause of action has arisen. If the cause of action has arisen wholly within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench or the Permanent Bench, obviously such writ petition can be filed only at the seat of the Principal Bench or of the Permanent Bench as the case may be. On the other hand, if the cause of action arises either wholly or in part within the areas allotted to the Principal Bench at Chennai and the Permanent Bench at Madurai, the writ petition can be filed at any of the places.
(5) A proceeding for transfer under Sections 22 to 24 of the C.P.C., partakes the character of an original proceeding and can be filed before the Principal Bench or the Permanent Bench depending upon the “cause of action” or “the reason” for filing such transfer petition. In order to avoid any possible confusion in such matter relating to filing of transfer position, we make it clear that where a person seeks transfer of a case from a place to another place coming within the jurisdiction of one Bench, such transfer position has to be filed before the very same Bench. On the other hand, where transfer is sought from a Court coming within the jurisdiction of the other Bench, such transfer petition can be filed before either Bench, obviously depending upon the cause of action for such transfer petition and the convenience of the petitioner.
(6) The Honourable the Chief Justice has discretion to direct that any writ filed or pending before the Principal Bench or the Permanent Bench can be taken up for disposal before the
Permanent Bench or the Principal Bench, as the case may be.”
4. The issue had been subject matter of a Full Bench decision of
this Court, reported in 2012 (3) L.W. 489. The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court, while approving the judgement of the Hon’ble Division Bench as referred supra, had also taken into consideration another Full Bench Judgement of this Court reported in 2007 (5) CTC 305 (Sanjos Jewellers v. Syndicate Bank) and had applied the principle of forum conveniens in determining the jurisdiction. If the claim of the petitioner is accepted, then any person applying for the post of Registrar from any part of the country could claim that the cause of action has arisen in different Courts. In such circumstances, the principle of forum conveniens would apply in the facts of the present case, the University of Madras is situated at Madras and its territorial jurisdiction is confined to the surrounding areas assigned to if under the statues of University of Madras, all of which fall within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Madras.
5. In such view of the matter, this court is of the view that the
present writ petition, which challenges the appointment of the Registrar of the University of Madras is only maintainable before the Principal Bench and that the Principal Bench has to deal with the matter. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to denumber the writ petition and after obtaining appropriate orders from the Hon’ble Administrative Judge, transfer the case to the Principal Bench at Madras.
19.11.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No
gvn
To
1. The State of TamilNadu,
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. The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.  
K.KUMARESH BABU.J. gvn
W.P.(MD).No.28795 of 2025

19.11.2025