2026:MHC:2327WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026

PRONOUNED ON : 29.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

and

WMP(MD)Nos.6339, 6340 of 2023

J.Devi ... Petitioner in both WPs

Vs

1.The Vice Chancellor,

Tamil University,

Thanjavur.

2.The Registrar,

Tamil University,

Thanjavur. ... Respondents 1 & 2 in

both WPs

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,

Thanjavur. ... 3

rd

Respondent in

WP(MD).8747/2023

1/17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

PRAYER in WP(MD).6760/2023 :-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to

call for the notification issued by the second respondent in

Na.Ka.No.A1/1187/2023 dated 20.03.2023 and quash the same.

PRAYER in WP(MD).8747/2023 :-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus

directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner as

Professor – Tamil Literature in the respondent University from the date

of joining of the petitioner in service on 03.06.2017.

For Petitioner: Mr.Shaazim Shagar

For Respondents: Mr.Gokul Abimanyu

for Mr.Arul Vadivel Associates

for R.1, R.2

Mr.M.Sarangan

Additional Government Pleader for R.3

[In both WPs]

*****

2/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

COMMON ORDER

The petitioner has been working as Professor in Tamil Literature in

the respondent Tamil University with effect from 03.06.2017. She has

filed WP(MD)No.8747 of 2023 seeking regularization of her services. In

the connected writ petition in WP(MD)No.6760 of 2023, she has

challenged the impugned notice dated 20.03.2023 issued by the Registrar

of the Tamil University. By the said notice, the petitioner was called

upon to offer her explanation to the audit objections raised for the year

2021-2022, wherein, among other things, it was stated that the petitioner

was appointed by relaxing the rules, (i) despite the non-availability of

her signature in the PBAS application form, and (ii) despite not

possessing the required ten years' experience, excluding the M.Phil. and

Ph.D. research period.

2.Considering the relevancy of the issues involved, both the writ

petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

3/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

Case of the petitioner:-

3.According to the petitioner, she possesses the requisite

qualifications prescribed under the UGC norms and was appointed

against a regular sanctioned vacancy. Her candidature was, in fact,

challenged by an unsuccessful candidate by filing WP(MD)No.18392 of

2018. Two of the grounds now relied upon in the impugned notice,

namely, that the petitioner did not possess the required ten years'

experience and that she had not signed the application form, were also

specifically raised and argued in the said writ petition. The writ petition

ultimately came to be dismissed by this Court, by order dated 07.07.2022,

holding that the Selection Committee of the University had rightly

concluded that the petitioner was more suited for the post.

4.It is the further case of the petitioner that, in WP(MD)No.18392 of

2018, the respondent University had filed a counter affidavit supporting

her appointment. Despite the above, the respondent has now issued the

impugned notice raising the very same grounds which had already been

4/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

considered and rejected by this Court. It is, therefore, contended that the

impugned notice is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the petitioner

has also sought a direction for regularization of her services.

Stand taken by the Tamil University:-

5.The University has stated that, pursuant to the order passed by a

Division Bench of this Court in WP(MD)Nos.17709 and 18416 of 2019, an

investigation was initiated by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing,

Thanjavur, in Crime No.10 of 2019, on the allegation that appointments

of 40 employees made in the Tamil University during the years

2017-2018, including the appointment of the present petitioner, were

secured for extraneous consideration.

6.Pending the outcome of the investigation, the Syndicate of the

University constituted a Sub-Committee to examine whether the

appointments made during 2017-2018 were in accordance with the

applicable regulations and to submit its report. Till such report was

received, the Syndicate resolved not to regularize the services of any of

5/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

the employees appointed during the said period. The Sub-Committee

thereafter submitted its report dated 07.10.2022 recommending that the

probation of the employees appointed during 2017-2018, including that

of the petitioner, should not be declared.

7.In the meanwhile, the Chancellor of the Tamil University /

Hon'ble Governor of Tamil Nadu constituted an Inquiry Commission

headed by Justice Dr.M.Jaichandran, former Judge of the Madras High

Court, to inquire into the appointments of 40 academicians, including

the petitioner, made during the years 2017-2018. The Commission

submitted its report to the Chancellor, which was accepted, and the

Syndicate was directed to take action against those found not qualified

for appointment as faculty members in the University. Pursuant thereto,

the Syndicate passed a resolution accepting the findings of the Inquiry

Commission and resolved to issue show cause notices to each of the

academicians concerned. According to the University, the process of

issuing such notices is presently underway.

6/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

8.Insofar as the challenge to the impugned notice is concerned, the

University has stated that the Local Fund Audit Department conducted a

regular audit relating to the appointments made during the years

2017-2018 and raised certain audit objections. The said objections were

forwarded to the respective employees calling upon them to submit their

explanations. Instead of offering her explanation to the audit objections,

the petitioner has chosen to file W.P.(MD)No.6760 of 2023.

Stand of the Vigilance Department:-

9.In order to ascertain the present status of Crime No.10 of 2019

registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Thanjavur, this

Court suo motu impleaded the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thanjavur, as a party to the proceedings.

10.The Vigilance Department has filed a status report stating that

Crime No.10 of 2019 was registered on 14.11.2019 for the offences under

Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 7, 13(1)(c),

7/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against four

persons, namely, Tr.G.Baskaran, former Vice-Chancellor of Tamil

University; Dr.S.Muthukumar, former Registrar of Tamil University;

Tr.G.Sakthisaravanan, Assistant / former PA to Registrar of Tamil

University; and Tr.N.Baskaran, former Director of Distance Education of

Tamil University. The allegations are that the accused persons entered

into a criminal conspiracy, demanded illegal gratification from

candidates seeking appointment as Professors and Assistant Professors,

and, in collusion with the members of the Selection Committee, boosted

the marks awarded in the oral interview and secured appointments for

ineligible candidates as Professors as well as non-teaching casual

labourers in the University.

11.It is further stated that, upon completion of the investigation, a

final report has been filed only against the first accused, Dr.G.Bhaskaran,

former Vice-Chancellor of the University, for the offences punishable

under Section 409 IPC and Sections 7, 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act. The same has been taken on file as

8/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

Spl.S.C.No.71 of 2025 by the Principal District Court, Thanjavur, and the

case is presently pending before the Special Court.

12.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and perused the materials placed on record.

13.The principal contention advanced by the petitioner is that the

very grounds on which the impugned notice came to be issued, namely,

(i) that she did not possess the requisite ten years' teaching experience,

and (ii) that she had not signed the PBAS application form, were already

considered by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in WP(MD)No.

18392 of 2018 instituted by an unsuccessful candidate. According to the

petitioner, once those issues have been decided in her favour by order

dated 07.07.2022, it is no longer open to the University to reopen the very

same issues by issuing the impugned notice calling upon her to explain

the audit objections.

9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

14.This Court is unable to accept the said contention for more than

one reasons.

15.The earlier writ petition arose out of a challenge made by an

unsuccessful candidate to the appointment of the petitioner. In the said

proceedings, the University defended the petitioner's appointment by

filing a counter affidavit through its then Vice-Chancellor and Registrar.

The petitioner, therefore, contends that the respondent University cannot

now take a contrary stand. This argument, however, overlooks the

factual background in which the said counter affidavit came to be filed.

At the relevant point of time, the legality of the appointments made

during the years 2017-2018 was already the subject matter of

investigation by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing. The

investigation itself was directed against, among others, the then Vice-

Chancellor and the Registrar, who represented the University in the said

proceedings. In such circumstances, it would be wholly unrealistic to

expect the very authorities whose actions were under investigation to

admit irregularities in the recruitment process. Therefore, the stand

10/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

taken by the University in the earlier writ proceedings cannot be

regarded as putting a quietus to the issue, particularly when the

investigation has since culminated in the filing of a final report and

prosecution has been launched against the former Vice-Chancellor.

16.That apart, the order dated 07.07.2022 itself indicates that the

larger issue concerning the appointments made during the years

2017-2018 was not the subject matter of adjudication therein. The

pendency of WP(MD)Nos.17709 and 18416 of 2019, instituted in public

interest, was specifically brought to the notice of the learned Judge.

While dismissing the writ petition filed by the unsuccessful candidate,

the Writ Court observed that the Public Interest Litigations involved

larger allegations relating to appointments made for extraneous

consideration and that those issues did not arise for consideration in the

said proceedings. Thus, the earlier judgment cannot be construed as

having finally adjudicated upon the legality of the entire recruitment

process or the allegations of irregularities in the appointments.

11/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

17.The materials subsequently placed before this Court disclose

developments which were neither available nor considered in the earlier

writ proceedings. The final report filed by the Vigilance and Anti-

Corruption Wing includes the petitioner's name among the appointees

whose appointments were subjected to scrutiny. The charge sheet

further discloses that an Expert Committee was constituted under G.O.

(D)No.64, Tamil Development and Information Department, dated

08.07.2021, to verify the appointments and identify irregularities with

reference to the API Scores and the prescribed qualifications.

18.The allegations contained in the final report are that the accused

public servant entered into a criminal conspiracy, attempted to obtain

illegal gratification in connection with the appointments and, by

manipulating the selection process, secured appointments for ineligible

candidates. Whether those allegations ultimately culminate in conviction

is a matter to be decided by the competent criminal court. Nevertheless,

the materials collected during the course of investigation constitute

12/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

subsequent developments which were neither available nor considered

when WP(MD)No.18392 of 2018 was decided. Therefore, the petitioner

cannot contend that the issues touching upon her eligibility have

attained finality.

19.It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Chancellor

of the Tamil University constituted an Inquiry Commission headed by

Justice Dr.M.Jaichandran, former Judge of this Court, to inquire into the

appointments made during the relevant period. The Commission has

submitted its report, which has been accepted by the Chancellor.

Pursuant thereto, the Syndicate has resolved to initiate appropriate

action against those who were found not to possess the prescribed

qualifications and, according to the University, the process of issuing

show cause notices to the concerned academicians is presently

underway. This is yet another circumstance indicating that the issue

relating to the appointments made during the years 2017-2018 continues

to remain under examination by the competent authorities.

13/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

20.Apart from the above developments, the Local Fund Audit

Department, in the course of its statutory audit, also raised certain

objections relating to the appointments made during the years

2017-2018, including that of the petitioner. The respondent University

has merely forwarded those audit objections to the petitioner calling

upon her to submit her explanation. The impugned notice is only for that

limited purpose. It neither records any finding against the petitioner nor

visits her with any civil consequences. On the contrary, it affords the

petitioner an opportunity to place her explanation before the competent

authority, who would thereafter take an appropriate decision in

accordance with law.

21.Viewed in the above perspective, this Court is unable to hold

that the respondent University was precluded from seeking the

petitioner's explanation merely because two of the audit objections

overlap with the issues raised in WP(MD)No.18392 of 2018. The earlier

judgment did not conclude the larger issue relating to the legality of the

appointments. The subsequent investigation by the Vigilance and Anti-

14/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

Corruption Wing, the findings of the Expert Committee, the acceptance

of the Inquiry Commission's report by the Chancellor and the

consequential administrative steps proposed by the University clearly

demonstrate that the matter continues to be under scrutiny. In such

circumstances, calling upon the petitioner to offer her explanation to the

audit objections cannot be said to be either illegal or without jurisdiction.

In view of the foregoing discussions and reasonings, both the writ

petitions fail and are accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as

to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Index : Yes / No 29.06.2026

Internet: Yes / No

NCC : Yes / No

gk

To

1.The Vice Chancellor,

Tamil University, Thanjavur.

2.The Registrar,

Tamil University, Thanjavur.

15/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,

Thanjavur.

16/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

gk

WP(MD)Nos.6760, 8747 of 2023

29.06.2026

17/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis