Pachiapa college teachers case writ appel order. W.A.No.2558 of 2022 and C. M.P.Nos.20187 & 20185 of 2022 PARESH UPADHYAY, J. and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. (Order of the Court was made by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) Challenge in this appeal is made to the common order dated 17.11.2022 recorded on W.P.Nos.19939 of 2014 & 36827 of 2016. This appeal is by some of the private respondents in the Accordingly, it is ordered that, the impugned order, more particularly para : 100  thereof shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeals arising from the said order.

W.A.No.2558 of 2022 and

C. M.P.Nos.20187 & 20185 of 2022

PARESH UPADHYAY, J.

and

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

(Order of the Court was made by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)

  1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the common order dated 17.11.2022 recorded on W.P.Nos.19939 of 2014 & 36827 of 2016. This appeal is by some of the private respondents in the

writ petitions.

  1. Issue notice to the parties, who are not before

the Court.

  1. We have heard Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants, Mr.R.Shunmuga Sundaram, learned Advocate General for the State Authorities, Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, learned

advocate for AG & OT/ Management / Trust and

Mr.P.Chandrasekar, learned advocate for the original writ

petitioners.

  1. We have also permitted other learned advocates to address the Court, who submitted that they have also filed appeals arising from the self same order of learned Single Judge

but those appeals are yet to be numbered.

  1. Whether any interim order needs to be passed or not,

is the point at issue at this stage.

  • Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants has

pressed for stay of the order of learned Single Judge.

  • Learned advocate for the writ petitioners, so also learned Advocate General for the State and the Management of the respondent Trust have submitted that, the impugned order of learned Single Judge be not stayed. Learned Advocate General further submitted that, the hearing of the appeal be fixed at an

early date.

  1. The operative part of the impugned order (para : 100)

reads as under:-

“CONCLUSION:

  1. Accordingly, the following orders are passed:
  • The selection and appointment of the candidates made pursuant to the Pachaiyappa’s Trust Board Notification Nos.03/2013 dated 12.12.2013, No.01/2014 dated 18.02.2014 and

No.01/2015 dated 02.02.2015 are declared as null and void.

  • The Management of the Pachaiyappa’s Trust Board is directed to terminate the services of all the appointed candidates forthwith.
  • The Management of the Pachaiyappa’s Trust Board is directed to conduct a fresh selection by following the procedures as contemplated and conclude the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
  • As an interim measure, the Management of the Pachaiyappa’s Trust Board shall allow the appointees to continue as Guest Lecturers for a period of three months or until the fresh selections are made on need basis.
  • The Government of Tamil Nadu and the Director of Collegiate Education, are directed to pay salary to the Guest Lecturers as per University Grants Commission (UGC) fixation, as applicable for Guest Lecturers.
  • If the appointed candidates are not willing to continue as Guest Lecturers, Pachaiyappa’s Trust Board is directed to engage any other Guest Lecturers from open market, so as to ensure that students studying in the colleges are not affected.”
  1. It is stated that, pursuant to the above direction, around 254 Assistant Professors, who are in service since year 2014 / 2016, are ordered to be terminated.
    • During the course of hearing, attention of the Court is invited to the prayer clause in both the writ petitions and  the discipline qua which the writ petitioners had made applications. Consequently, the question of locus of the writ petitioners was also raised by the  present appellants, which is rejected by

learned Single Judge.

  • By comparing the prayer clause of the writ petitions argument is also pressed into service that, the writ petition is in substance converted as public interest litigation which learned

Single Judge could not have entertained.

  • The impugned directions affect even those persons

who were not party in the writ petitions.

  1. We also find prima facie that, the impugned judgment dated 17.11.2022 is principally based on the report of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 15.11.2022. The said report was asked for vide interim order dated 11.10.2022 and which could not have been tendered to the Court prior to 15.11.2022. Serious grievance is made on behalf of the

appellants that no opportunity much less effective opportunity was given to the present appellants to deal with / meet with the

said report since the final judgment is passed on 17.11.2022.

  1. During the course of hearing, attention of the Court is also invited to the stand of the Management (vide para : 26 of the order) and the finding qua it ( vide para : 69 of the order). Going by this, according to the Management, show cause notices were required to be issued to around 152 Assistant Professors. The final direction is to terminate the service of about 254 Assistant Professors. Learned single Judge, at more than one

places has recorded that it is difficult to segregate who was right,

who was wrong.

  1. Attention of the Court is also invited to the proceedings dated 21.08.2020 (at page 243) where there is specific reference to the cancellation of appointment dated 19.08.2020 as referred at (Sl.No.14) and observations of the

High Court dated 21.08.2020 (Sl.No.15), with the endorsement that “The proceedings No.14 read above is kept in abeyance until

further orders.”

  1. In para : 31 of the order, reference is also made to some unqualified candidates. ‘Less meritorious candidates’ and ‘Unqualified candidates’ are different connotations.
  2. Reference is also made to the contents of para : 97 of the impugned order, which may have consequences other than

termination of the selected candidates.

  1. Having heard learned advocates for all the four

contesting sides and on conjoint consideration of the material noted above, we find prima facie that, the impugned judgment and order is unsustainable and the same needs to be kept in abeyance. Accordingly, it is ordered that, the impugned order, more particularly para : 100  thereof shall remain stayed during

pendency of the appeals arising from the said order.

  1. Liberty is reserved to the parties to move the Court

for early hearing of the matter.

(P.U.,J.)      (D.B.C.,J.)        22.11.2022

ssm/3

PARESH UPADHYAY, J. and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

ssm

W.A.No.2558 of 2022 and C.M.P.Nos.20187 & 20185 of 2022

22.11.2022

You may also like...