Kiran Raj

The Madras High Court, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar, has dismissed a petition challenging the amendment of Statute 25 in Chapter IX, Volume 1, of the University of Madras Calendar, which introduced a system of rotation for the position of Head of Department based on performance and merit. The petitioner sought to declare the amendment illegal and ultra vires to the Madras University Act, 1923. The court, after examining the statutory provisions and procedures followed, held that the amendment did not violate the Act and promoted equal opportunity among senior professors.

The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the amendment introduced by the Syndicate and approved by the Senate of the University of Madras. The amendment replaced the existing system, where the senior-most professor in a department automatically assumed the role of Head of Department, with a new system based on rotation, performance, and merit.

The petitioner, a professor in the Department of Criminology, had been designated as Head of Department under the pre-amended statute, which granted the position to the senior-most professor. The petitioner contended that the amendment was introduced without following the statutory procedures outlined in Section 30 of the Madras University Act, 1923. He argued that no proper consultation had taken place, and the opinion survey among professors, as required under the Act, was not duly considered.

The respondents, including the Chancellor of Universities, the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher Education, and the University of Madras, defended the amendment. The university maintained that the decision was made following due process and was aimed at ensuring equal opportunity for all eligible senior professors. The respondents asserted that the amendment sought to avoid stagnation and allow multiple professors to contribute to the university’s development.

The university further argued that the amendment did not alter service conditions or confer any promotional benefits. Instead, it provided a framework where all senior professors, based on merit, could serve as Head of Department for a specified term. The Chancellor of Universities had assented to the amendment, which was subsequently notified on May 9, 2023.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the process followed for amending the statute. It referred to Section 30 of the Madras University Act, which governs the procedure for making and amending statutes. The court recorded:

"The Senate as well as the Syndicate consists of members of Heads of various departments, who were present at the annual meeting of the Senate held on 25.03.2023, approved the amendment to Statute 25 in Chapter IX of the Madras University Act, 1923. Thus, the University has followed the procedures."

The court examined the objectives behind the amendment and found that it was introduced to provide opportunities to all meritorious professors, prevent stagnation, and encourage diverse leadership within departments. The judgment stated:

"The rationale behind the impugned amendment is apparent that all the eligible senior most professors in a department in the University shall be provided with an opportunity to serve as Head of the Department. Undoubtedly, such rotational based designation of Head of the Department would not only enhance the efficiency level in a department, but would provide equal opportunity to all senior professors in a Department."

The court also noted that the amendment did not confer any additional monetary benefits or promotions but only assigned administrative responsibilities on a rotational basis. The judgment recorded:

"Head of the Department is a designation and not a promotion. The Statute 25 contemplates that all other professors, readers and lecturers, if any, shall work under the direction of the professor and the Head of the Department concerned with the subject, and shall assist him in the performance of his duties as defined."

Regarding the petitioner’s argument that the amendment violated the statutory procedure, the court found that the necessary approvals had been obtained from the Syndicate, Senate, and the Chancellor. It stated:

"The Syndicate at its meetings held on August 23, 2022 and February 14, 2023 considered the opinion survey report from the Professors (who are currently not Heads of Departments) for rotation of headship and resolved that survey report from the Professors for rotation of headship of the departments of the University, be executed based on the performance, and the merit of the Professors of the concerned department."

After considering the submissions of both parties, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the amendment was valid and did not contravene any statutory provisions. The court stated:

"In view of the discussions made above, this Court do not find any reason or acceptable ground to interfere with the impugned amendment brought-in into the Statute 25, Chapter IX, Volume 1, University Calendar 2016. Thus, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There shall be no orders as to costs."

Case Title: Prof. Dr. M. Srinivasan v. The Chancellor of Universities and Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 5862 of 2024
Bench: Justice S.M. Subramaniam, Justice K. Rajasekar

[Read/Download order]