WP/34304/2025 of K.NAGALAKSHMI Vs THE REGISTRAR
WP No. 34304 of 2025
__________
Page1 of 13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 25.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 01.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
WP No. 34304 of 2025
AND
WMP NO. 38454 OF 2025,WMP NO. 38455 OF 2025
K.Nagalakshmi
D/o. Nkuppusamy, Associate Professor, Psychology
Departmetn, Annamalia University, Chidambaram
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Registrar
Annamalai University, Annamali Nagar,
Chidambaram, Cuddalore
2. Dr J M Asgarali Patel
S/o. Mohamed Mubharak, Department Of
Psychology, Annamalai University, Annamalia
Nagar, Chidambram, Cuddalore
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for records of
university order no. 475/ 2025( C) dated 03.09.2025 passed by the 1st
respondent appointing the 2nd respondent as Head of department
psychology Annamalai university quash the same and consequently direct the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 34304 of 2025
__________
Page2 of 13
1st respondent to appoint the petitioner as Head of the Department of
Psychology at Annamalai University in accordance with section 46 of the
Annamalai University Act 2013 and the established rotati on among
eligible teaching faculty pass such further or others as this honourabl e court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.S.Viswanathan, Senior Counsel for
Ms.T.Dharani
For Respondent(s): Ms.H.Mary Sowmi Rexi for M/s.Isaac
Chambers, for R.1
Ms.Dhakshyani Reddy, Sr. Advocate,
Assisted by
M/s.S.Suneetha
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.09.2025
passed by the 1st respondent appointing the 2nd respondent as a Head of the
Department of Psychology (hereinafter referred to as ‘HoD’ for the sake of
brevity) in accordance with Section 46 of the Annamalai University Act 2013
(herein after referred to as the “Act”).
2. The short facts which has resulted in the filing of the above Wr it
Petition are as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 34304 of 2025
__________
Page3 of 13
2.1. It is the contention of the petitioner that she has been serving the 1st
respondent University since 19.02.2001. In the year 2018, she was promoted as
an Associate Professor and she has to her credit 24 years of continuous and
meritorious service. The petitioner would submit that she is fully qualified and
eligible for appointment as HoD as per Section 48 of the Act.
2.2. The petitioner would submit that on a rotational basis, she had been
appointed as HoD in compliance with directions issued by the Tamil N adu
Higher Education Department vide letter No.2503/K2/2024-16 dated
22.05.2025. This letter mandated that the post of HoDs should be filled on a
rotational basis once in every three years and that a list of such appointments be
submitted to the Government. The petitioner would submit that contra ry to this
rule, by the impugned order dated 03.09.2025, the 2nd respondent was
arbitrarily appointed as HoD without issuing any notice to the petitione r and
without affording her an opportunity of hearing, both of which are contra ry to
the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 19968 of 2025.
2.3. The petitioner submitted that the 2 nd respondent had already served a
full tenure as HoD from 24.07.2019 to 24.07.2022 and therefore he cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 34304 of 2025
__________
Page4 of 13
reappointed without selecting from the other eligible faculty member s, such as
the petitioner. Earlier orders of this Court, as well as judgment s of other courts,
clearly indicate that the position of HoD is a notional appointment a nd not a
promotion, and should therefore be filled on a rotational basis so that all eligible
candidates have the opportunity to learn the nuances of administration.
2.4. The petitioner’s contention is that, as per Section 46 of the Ac t, the
teaching departments of the University follow a three-tier structure in the
teaching faculty, as follows:-
(i) Professors,
(ii) Readers (Associate Professors)
(iii) Lecturers (Assistant Professors)
2.5. The position of HoD is offered on a rotational basis across the t hree
tiers of the teaching faculty. However, contrary to this settle d rule, the 2nd
respondent has been appointed as HoD that too without following the direc tions
passed in WP.No.19968 of 2025 dated 27.06.2025. Therefore, the petitioner is
before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 34304 of 2025
__________
Page5 of 13
3. Since the issue involved in the case on hand is purely one of
interpretation of the Act and the existing rules, arguments have been advanced
by both the 1st and the 2nd respondents and no counter has been filed by them.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
would submit that the Secretary to Government, Higher Education De partment,
in his letter dated 22.05.2025, had enclosed the minutes of the meeting he ld
with the Registrars of all Universities under the aegis of the Hi gher Education
Department on 15.05.2025, in which one of the items of the agenda was as
follows:-
“The Secretary to Government instructed the Registrars to
identify those Heads of Departments in Universities who are
serving as HoDs in the same Department for more than 3 years
and to furnish the list to the Government. He also instructed the
Registrars to appoint the faculty in the post of HoD on rotation
basis for every 3 years.”
5. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that Section 46 of the Ac t
provides for the appointment of the HoD on a rotational basis and provides t hat
a person may hold the post of HoD for a period of three years. He would submit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 34304 of 2025
__________
Page6 of 13
that this issue had been considered by this Court in WP.No.14940 of 2015
wherein the learned Judge of this Court by order dated 22.04.2016 had upheld
the appointment of HoD on a rotational basis. He would further submit tha t the
University has been adopting the rotational basis of appointment and has also
earlier appointed Associate Professors to the post of the HoD. In fac t, it is his
argument that when the 2 nd respondent was appointed as HoD, he was holding
the post of Associate Professor. He further submitted that, as on date , the 2nd
respondent does not hold the post of Professor. For these reasons, he sought to
have the impugned order set aside.
6. Per contra, Ms.Dhakshyani Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the 2nd respondent would submit that the proviso to Rule 46 makes
it very clear that an Associate Professor or an Assistant Professor can be
appointed as HoD only in circumstances where there is no Professor. In the case
on hand, the 2nd respondent is a Professor and therefore the petitioner cannot be
considered for appointment to the post of HoD and therefore the order
impugned cannot be called into question. She would further submit by order
dated 27.06.2025 in W.P.No. 19968 of 2025, the learned Judge had remitted the
matter back to the 1 st respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with the
Rules and the order passed in W.A. No. 1807 of 2022, and also by following the
due process of law. It is her contention that, by virtue of the order passed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 34304 of 2025
__________
Page7 of 13
W.A. No. 1807 of 2022 dated 13.07.2023, the 2nd respondent has been
promoted to the post of Professor. Therefore, she submitted that there is no
infirmity in the impugned order and sought to have the Writ Petition dismissed.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent would
more or less adopt the same arguments.
8. Heard the rival submission, perused the affidavit and the documents
filed along with the Writ Petition.
9. The petitioner who is an Associate Professor had been appointed as the
HoD vide University Order No.225/2025 (C) dated 20.05.2025 and a copy of
the said order had also been forwarded to the 2nd respondent herein. The
Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, had held a meeting
with the Registrars of all Universities under the aegis of the Hi gher Education
Department on 15.05.2025. One of the items in the agenda for discussion in the
said meeting related to the identification of persons functioning as HoDs in
Universities for over three years in the same department and to furnish the list to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 34304 of 2025
__________
Page8 of 13
the Government. In the said meeting, the Registrars were also inst ructed to
appoint faculty to the post of HoD on a rotational basis for every three years.
10. The 2nd respondent herein had been appointed as HoD on 24.07.2019
for a period of three years, which ended on 24.07.2022. At the time of his
appointment as HoD, he was only an Associate Professor. Subsequently, the 2 nd
respondent and others had filed a batch of Writ Petitions seeking prom otion to
the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). These Writ
Petitions were dismissed, and the same were challenged by the 2 nd respondent
and others in W.A.No. 1807 of 2022, etc. batch.
11. By order dated 13.07.2023, a Division Bench of this Court, after
considering the arguments, relevant rules, and judgments in this reagrd,
ultimately held that the appellants therein, including the 2 nd respondent, are
entitled to dual promotion, provided they fulfil the eligibility cri teria mentioned
in the UGC Regulations. The Court further held that they cannot be deni ed the
right to be considered for promotion due to inaction or failure on the part of the
respondent University in conducting CAS promotions by constituting the
Scrutiny-cum-Evaluation Committee. It was also made clear that the failure on
the part of the appellants for not having worked as an Associate Profe ssor for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 34304 of 2025
__________
Page9 of 13
the required number of years would not stand in the way of their being
promoted to the post of Professor.
12. It appears that since the orders were not complied with, a Conte mpt
Petition was filed. When the Contempt Petition was taken up f or hearing on
28.03.2024, it was reported to the Court that the order dated 21.03.2024 had
been complied with. Recording the same, the Contempt Petition was closed.
13. A perusal of University Order No. 225 of 2025, dated 20.05.2025,
indicates that the 2nd respondent, who is described as an Associate Professor and
Co-ordinator of the Psychology Wing, Centre for Distance & Online Education,
was appointed as Head (i/c) of the Department of Psychology for a pe riod of
three years from the date of joining duty. He was directed to ta ke charge, and
was also transferred and posted to work as an Associate Professor in the
Department of Psychology with immediate effect. The then Head, Assoc iate
Professor and Head (i/c) of the Department of Psychology, Dr. K. Govind, was
directed to hand over the charge of the Head of the Department to the 2 nd
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 34304 of 2025
__________
Page10 of 13
14. However, it appears that on 01.06.2025 by University Order
No.267/2025 (C) dated 01.06.2025, the petitioner herein was appointed as Head
(i/c) of the Department of Psychology with immediate effect. This appointment
was challenged by the 2nd respondent by way of a WP.No.19968 of 2025 which
gave rise to the following orders:-
“Recording the submission of the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the first respondent, the impugned order
dated 01.06.2025 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
first respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with Rules
and also in accordance with the order passed in W.A.No.1807 of
2022 and also by following due process of law.”
15. Therefore, from a perusal of the order passed in W.P. No. 19968 of
2025, dated 27.06.2025, it is evident that this Court had contemplated that a
fresh enquiry should be conducted by the 1 st respondent, in which both the
petitioner as well as the 2 nd respondent were to be heard before passing any
order. However, without conducting an enquiry, the order now impugned, dated
03.09.2025, was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner or the 2 nd
respondent, and without affording them an opportunity of hearing. Therefore ,
the impugned order is not in consonance with the order passed in WP.No.19968
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 34304 of 2025
__________
Page11 of 13
of 2025. Further, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the 2nd respondent that an Associate Professor and Assistant
Professor cannot be considered for appointment to the post of HoD cannot be
countenanced for the reason that a reading of Section 46(2) of the Act would
indicate the following:-
“(2) It shall be open to a Professor or an Associate
Professor or an Assistant Professor to decline the offer of
appointment as Head of the Department.”
16. A reading of the above would clearly imply that both Associate
Professor and Assistant Professor can also be considered for appointed as HoD .
That apart, the 2 nd respondent himself was an Associate Professor when he was
appointed as HoD and further in various Departments Associate Professors have
been appointed as HoD despite their being a Professor available in the said
Department. Therefore, the said argument has to fail particular ly when Rule 46
(3) prescribes that a person cannot be appointed as a HoD for over a pe riod of 3
years and he is entitled to re-appointment.
17. In the light of the above discussions, since the 2 nd respondent has been
appointed without following the dicta of the earlier Writ Petition, this Writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 34304 of 2025
__________
Page12 of 13
Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matte r is remitted
back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. The 1st respondent shall
follow the directions passed in W.P. No. 19968 of 2025, consider the
appointment of the petitioner afresh with effect from 01.06.2025, give due
opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent, interpret
Section 46(1), (2), and (3), as well as the order passed in W.A. No. 1807 of
2022, and thereafter pass appropriate orders within 4 weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Considering the fact that the 2 nd respondent is
currently holding the post of HoD pursuant to the impugned order, he shall not
be disturbed till orders are passed by the 1st respondent. No costs. Consequently,
the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
01.04.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SHR
To
1. The Registrar
Annamalai University, Annamali Nagar,
Chidambaram, Cuddalore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 34304 of 2025
__________
Page13 of 13
P.T.ASHA J.
SHR
WP No. 34304 of 2025
AND
WMP NO. 38454 OF 2025,WMP NO. 38455 OF 2025
01.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis