W.P.No.12019 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 09.02.2026

Pronounced on : 13.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

and WMP.No.12786 of 2021

S.Seenivasan ... Petitioner

vs

1.State of Tamil Nadu

Rep by its Secretary

Higher Education Departmental

Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

2.The Registrar

Anna University,

No.12, Sardar Patel Road

Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.

3.The Chairman

All India Council for Technical Education

New Delhi, Nelson Mandela Marg

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 11070

4.The Regional Director

All India Council for Technical Education

Shastri Bhavan, 26 Haddows Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

5.The Secretary

Misrimal Navajee Munoth Jain Engineering College

Thuraipakkam

1/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

Chennai – 600 097

6.Dr.Christoper

The Principal

Misrimal Navajee Munoth Jain Engineering College

Thuraipakkam

Chennai – 600 097.

… Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

praying to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto directing the 6

th

respondent to show cause

by what authority he claims to hold the post of the Principal, Misrimal Navajee

Munoth Jain Engineering College, Thuraipakkam, Chennai – 600097 and

consequently remove the 6

th

respondent from the post.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Antony Jesus.

For Respondents : Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, AGP for R1.

Mr.Avinash Wadhwani for R2.

Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, SSC for R3 & R4.

Mr.C.Johnson for R5 & R6.

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional

Government Pleader for R1, learned counsel appearing for R2, learned standing

counsel for R3 and R4 and the learned counsel for R5 and R6 and perused the

record.

2. The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed the action of

the 5

th

respondent in appointing the 6

th

respondent as Principal of the 5

th

respondent

2/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

college and seeks for issuance of writ of quo-warranto directing the 6

th

respondent

to show cause as to under what authority he is holding the post of Principal of the

5

th

respondent college, with a consequential direction to remove him from the post

of Principal of the 5

th

respondent college.

3. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is that he had worked as Campus

Supervisor of the 5

th

respondent college for 9 years and opted for voluntary

retirement on 01.11.2000; and having worked in the said college for long years and

having rich experience in working other college he has concern for engineering

education and welfare of teaching and other faculties of the 5

th

respondent college.

4. The petitioner further contended that the 5

th

respondent appointed the

6

th

respondent as its Principal in the year 2014; that during inspection caused by the

2

nd

respondent in the year 2017, it was found that the 6

th

respondent was ineligible

to hold the post of Principal and accordingly the 2

nd

respondent had issued

deficiency report / show cause notice to the 5

th

respondent in letter dated

21.04.2017; and that thereafter the 6

th

respondent was expelled from the post of

Principal of the 5

th

respondent college.

3/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

5. The petitioner further contended that the 5

th

respondent having

expelled the 6

th

respondent from the post of principal, had once again appointed

him as its Principal in the year 2019, despite of the 6

th

respondent not possessing

the requisite qualification as per All India Council for Technical Education (herein

after referred to as “AICTE”) guidelines; that the 6

th

respondent is only a graduate

and Post Graduate in Science and claims to have obtained M.Tech degree without

completing the Under Graduate degree in Engineering; and that the doctoral decree

is also in Chemistry and not in any Engineering stream for him to claim as eligible

to hold the post of Principal.

6. It is further case of the petitioner that as per AICTE regulations, in

order to be a Principal of an Engineering college, one should possess qualification

of Under Graduate, Post Graduate and Ph.D in Engineering stream and in as much

as the 6

th

respondent does not possess the said qualification, the 5

th

respondent

could not have appointed him as its Principal having removed it from the said post

after the 2

nd

respondent raising a deficiency report / show cause notice during April

2017.

7. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the 6

th

respondent not

4/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

only lacks the requisite educational qualification to hold the post of Principal, but

also lacks experience; that in his employment, he has worked only as Assistant

Professor and not as Professor, that to in basic science department and not in any

Engineering branch of studies; that on account of lack of educational qualification,

the 6

th

respondent could not conduct faculty meeting effectively as he did not

possess sufficient knowledge in Engineering to interact with other faculty

members; that with insufficient knowledge he interacts with other faculty in

teaching methods causing frustration among the teaching staff; that he and others

have brought the aforesaid matter to the knowledge of college management; that

inspite of the same, the 5

th

respondent is not taking any action to correct the

mistake and are running the 5

th

respondent college with a person as Principal

having no qualification in terms of both education and experience.

8. It is also contended by the petitioner that he has sent a representation

dated 23.02.2021 to the respondents requesting to direct the 5

th

respondent college

to appoint a person with requisite qualification as Principal and inspite of the

directions of Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai issuing a letter dated

11.03.2021 to the 2

nd

respondent to take action on the petitioner's representation, no

action has been taken thereon. Hence, the present writ petition.

5/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

9. Counter affidavit on behalf of the 5

th

respondent is filed.

10. The respondent by the counter affidavit while denying the writ

averments contended that the petitioner was no way connected with the academic

and was appointed to supervise and assigned the job of supervising the gardeners,

scavengers and sweepers, and as such cannot claims of he being concerned with

Engineering Education and Welfare of teaching other faculties.

11. The respondents further contended that the petitioner was allowed to

retire from the post of Supervisor in the year 2020, inspite of his misdoings while

in service, by accepting the apology tendered by him, as and when he was found

short of his duties; that the petitioner is having grudge against the 5

th

respondent

college and 6

th

respondent; and thus, has filed the present writ petition.

12. It is also contended by the respondent that though the petitioner

claims of having concern for Engineering Education and teaching faculty, none of

the faculty members or the students who sought admission into 5

th

respondent

6/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

college, have questioned the appointment of the 6

th

respondent as Principal of the

5

th

respondent college or that there is any complaint of he not being able to interact

with the faculty, due to lack of knowledge or experience.

13. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that the

6

th

respondent is fully qualified in terms of the AICTE guidelines Regulations and

2

nd

respondent / Anna University norms to hold to post of Principal of Engineering

college; that the 5

th

respondent was appointed to the said post after thoroughly

evaluating his educational qualification and experience during the academic year

2015-2016; that the 6

th

respondent was serving as Principal in other Engineering

Colleges prior to being appointed as Principal of the 5

th

respondent college in the

academic year 2014-2015; that the querry raised by the 2

nd

respondent inspection

committee with reference to educational qualification of the 6

th

respondent during

the year 2017 was clarified to the 2

nd

respondent satisfaction; and that it is only

thereafter the 3

rd

respondent had accorded its approval for the appointment of the

6

th

respondent as Principal of the 5

th

respondent college.

7/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

14. By the counter affidavit it is also contended that the petitioner has no

locus standi to maintain the present writ petition as he is not an aggrieved person

and has filed the present writ petition due to personal vendetta and ill will and

aversion against the 5

th

respondent institution.

15. The 5

th

respondent by the counter affidavit contended that the

petitioner cannot seek for issuance of writ of quo-warranto as the 5

th

respondent

college is a self financing college, not drawing any grant, either educational or

maintenance from the Government of Tamil Nadu or from the Union of India; and

that the post of Principal is neither substantive nor independent position and the

same is terminable at the discretion of the Management committee, as such no writ

of quo-warantto can be issued directing the 6

th

respondent to show cause notice.

Contending as above, the respondents seek for dismissal of the writ petition in

limine with cost.

16. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

17. At the outset it is to be noted that though the petitioner claims

8/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

himself as a person interested in Engineering Eduction and welfare of teaching and

other faculty he did not disclose his educational qualification in the writ affidavit,

for this Court to accept that he having found the 6

th

respondent lacking in

educational qualification and experience as claimed. Admittedly, the petitioner is

neither a student nor a teaching faculty of the 5

th

respondent college. On the other

hand the petitioner is a supervisor, supervising the work of Scavengers, Gardeners

and Sweepers and thus cannot claim himself being an aggrieved party.

18. It is also to be noted that if only the petitioner is interested in

Engineering Education by ensuring the standard or guidelines set by the AICTE

and Anna University (i.e) 2

nd

and 3

rd

respondents are being thrown to wind, thereby

affecting the larger community of students undergoing the Engineering Education,

and the petitioner being a public spirited person concerned about the falling

education standards, he ought to have approached this Court by way of public

interest litigation (PIL) and not by way of writ petition of the present nature i.e.,

seeking issuance of writ of Quo-warranto claiming it as a service dispute.

19. Though, on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that as per the

9/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

norms of AICTE regulations/3

rd

respondent and Anna University/2

nd

respondent, to

which the 5

th

respondent college is affiliated, requires, a person in order to be

appointed to the post of Principal should have qualification of B.E/ B.Tech and

M.E/M.Tech in relevant branch with first class or equivalent either in B.E/B.Tech

or any M.E/M.Tech with post Ph.D publication and guiding Ph.D graduates is

highly desirable with work experience of minimum of 10 years experience in

teaching / research / industry, out of which at least three years shall be at the level

of HOD or equivalent, it is to be noted that the norms as issued by the 2

nd

respondent with heading “faculty” recruitment in affiliated colleges appointed on

or after 01.03.2019, adopts the norms specified by AICTE vide its regulations

dated 13.03.2010. The 13.03.2010 regulations of AICTE are issued under

notification dated 05.03.2010 and is gazetted on 13.03.2010.

20. As per the said regulations of AICTE guidelines gazetted on

13.03.2010, the educational qualification and experience for being appointed to the

post of Principal is stated as under :-

10/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

Principal

Qualification - as

above for the post of

HOD & Ph.D in

Engineering or

qualification as above

for the post of HOD

Experience - Minimum of 10 years, relevant experience in

teaching / research / industry out of which atleast three

years shall be at the level of HOD or equivalent in case of

Architect, Professional practice of 10 years as certified by

the council of Architecture shall also be considered as

valid.

Since, the qualification for being appointed as Principal, is mentioned same as

qualification for the post of HOD, it is necessary to refer to qualification prescribed

for being appointed as HOD and the same reads as under :-

HOD

Engineering / Technology qualification – Bachelors and Master

decree of appropriate branch in Engineering / Technology with

first class or equivalent either Bachelors or Masters level or

Bachelors degree and Masters degree of appropriate branch in

engineering / technology with first class or equivalent either

Bachelors or master level and Ph.D or equivalent, in

appropriate discipline in Engineering / Technology

- - - -

The norms for faculty recruitment affiliated qualification as issued by the 2

nd

respondent / Anna University, insofar as the Engineering and Technology adopting

AICTE gazette notification dated 13.03.2010 prescribes the qualification and

experience as under :

11/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

Principal

Qualification as above i.e., for

the post of Professor as

applicable.

Post Ph.D qualification and

guiding Ph.D students is highly

desirable.

In cases of research

experience, good academic

record and books / research

paper publications/ patents

record shall be required as

deemed fit by the expert

members of the Selection

Committee.

Experience minimum of 10 years experience in

teaching / research / industry out of which at least

three years shall be at the level of Professor or

minimum 13 years experience in teaching and or

research and or industry.

If the experience in Industry is considered the same

shall be at managerial level equivalent to Professor

level with active participation record in devising /

designing, developing, planning, executing,

analyzing, quality control, innovating training,

technical books / research paper publications / IPR /

patents etc as deemed fit by the expert members of

the Selection Committee.

Flair for management and Leadership is essential.

Since, the qualification prescribed refers to the qualification as that of Post of

Professor; and that the qualification required for being appointed to the post of

Professor refers to the qualification to that of Associate Professor; and that the

qualification required for being appointed as Associate Professor refers to

qualification as required for being appointed to the post of Assistant Professor, it is

necessary to refer to the qualification required for being appointed as Assistant

Professor which reads as under :-

Assistant

Professor

B.E. / B.Tech and M.E. / M.Tech in relevant

branch with First Class or equivalent either in

B.E. / B.Tech or M.E / M.Tech

Underlining and emphasis supplied by Court

- - -

12/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

21. Though, the aforesaid norms as issued by the 2

nd

respondent makes a

reference that the same as per AICTE gazette notification dated 13.03.2010. It is

to be noted that the said norms are slightly in variance with reference to the

position / post like Assistant Professor / Associate Professor.

22. Thus, taking note of the fact that AICTE regulations dated

05.03.2010 gazetted on 13.03.2010 prescribes that in order to appoint as a

Principal one should have Bachelor and Master decree of appropriate branch in

Engineering / Technology in first class or equivalent either Bachelor or Master

level and Ph.D in Engineering and Technology, it is to be seen, whether the 6

th

respondent fulfills the said criteria or qualification as required for the post of HOD.

23. From the material papers filed by the petitioner along with writ

petition, it is evident that the 6

th

respondent is possessing M.Tech in Material

Technology and having secured Gold Medal from IIT – BHU (Banaras Hindu

University) in the year 1991, which is one of the premier Central University set up

in the year 1915 by Sri Madhan Mohan Malviya along with Annie Besant and

Rameshwar Singh, the petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the 6

th

respondent

13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

acquiring M.Tech qualification from one of the premier institutes of the Country

and also securing Gold Medal simply by stating that the 6

th

respondent claims to

have obtained M.Tech degree.

24. Further, from the material papers itself, it would be evident that the

6

th

respondent having secured Ph.D (Doctor of Philosophy) in Material Science and

Technology during the year 1998 from the same IIT – BHU from the faculty of

Engineering and Technology, the 6

th

respondent fulfills the requirement of having a

Master degree in Engineering with first class and also Ph.D in Engineering and

Technology, thereby, meeting the required qualification criteria specified under

AICTE regulations for being appointed to the post of Principal of an Engineering

College.

25. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner that, the 6

th

respondent not

having sufficient experience, it is to be noted that the 6

th

respondent before being

appointed as Principal of the 5

th

respondent college, had worked as Senior Principal

of an Engineering college during the period 2012-2014; as Principal and HOD of

another Engineering College during the period 2008-2009 on deputation and also

14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

as Senior Professor, Professor of Kalasalingam University during the period from

2002-2008 and 2009-2011. By taking into consideration the entire work

experience of the 6

th

respondent from 1997 at various levels till initial appointment

in 5

th

respondent college in 2014 and again in 2019 would go to show that the 6

th

respondent has got more than 25 years of experience and not a novice either to the

subject or to the position.

26. Though it was sought to be contended that the 6

th

respondent without

having B.E. / B.Tech degree could not have secured admission into M.Tech, thus

casting a doubt on the Educational Qualification possessed by the 6

th

respondent, it

is to be noted that in order to secure admission into premier institutes like BHU,

one needs to write Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) and the said

exam allows a candidate having Master's degree in Science to seek admission into

M.Tech course based on the score secured. Thus, a lateral entry into Post Graduate

Engineering program i.e, M.Tech is allowed having Master's and securing Gold

Medal and thereafter also obtaining Ph.D., only goes to show it is the petitioner

who lacks basic knowledge of Engineering Education and the institutions

providing such education.

27. Though the petitioner claimed of he and other teachers having

15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

approached the 5

th

respondent and complained about the 6

th

respondent lack of

sufficient knowledge thereby not being able to interact with the faculty, no material

is placed before this Court to substantiate the said claim and thus, it is to be

construed that the said contention is only raised for the purpose of the present writ

petition so as to cause prejudice against the 6

th

respondent and thus is accordingly

rejected.

28. Thus, considered from any angle, the claim of the petitioner that the

6

th

respondent is ineligible to be appointed as Principal, appears to be a figment of

imagination, and the entire endeavor of the petitioner appears to be malafide .

29. It is settled law when such motivated and malicious writ petitions are

filed with ulterior objective, the Court should not only dismiss the writ petition but

also should visit the petitioner with cost for blocking the judicial hours from

dealing with the matters requiring judicial attention.

30. The Hon'ble Apex Court for filing frivolous litigations and dealing

with the aspect of imposition of costs in the follows cases held as under :-

(i) Haryana Urban Development Authority and another V.

Jagdeep Singh – (2023) 14 SCC 122.

“15. For filing the present frivolous appeal, in our opinion, the

appellants deserve to be burdened with heavy cost. This Court had

deprecated the conduct of the litigants in flooding this Court with

16/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

frivolous litigations, which are choking the dockets as a result of which

the matters, which require consideration are delayed. Observations made

in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar : (2017) 3 SCC

(Civ) 189] are extracted below :

“13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by

a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process

will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A

litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of

the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to

follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or

on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are

inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation,

as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium

on the truth.

14. ........ It is the duty of every court to firmly deal with

such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary

instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to

prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts

can set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the

concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time

costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to

citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut

to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which

flood the system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass.

Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and

17/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not

exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay

justice. We commend all courts to deal with frivolous filings in the

same manner.”

(ii) Leelawati (dead) through L.R.s V. State of U.P.

and others – 2025 SCC Online SC 612.

“9. It is necessary to observe that the proceedings in the

Court of law are initiated for adjudication of disputes and to provide

justice to the parties, by which trust and confidence of the litigants

reposed on this great institution can be maintained. In case one of the

parties misuse the said process or attempt to obtain an order by trick

and strategem, the Courts would be justified in imposing the costs for

igniting such vexatious litigation......”

31. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as frivolous and devoid of

merits with exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the petitioner to the credit of

High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai within a period of four weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

13.02.2026

Speaking order / Non-speaking order

Index: Yes / No

Neutral Citation: Yes / No

18/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

tsh

To

1.State of Tamil Nadu

Rep by its Secretary

Higher Education Departmental

Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

2.The Registrar

Anna University,

No.12, Sardar Patel Road

Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.

3.The Chairman

All India Council for Technical Education

New Delhi, Nelson Mandela Marg

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 11070

4.The Regional Director

All India Council for Technical Education

Shastri Bhavan, 26 Haddows Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

5.The Secretary

Misrimal Navajee Munoth Jain Engineering College

Thuraipakkam

Chennai – 600 097.

19/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

T. VINOD KUMAR , J.

tsh

Pre-delivery order made in

W.P.No.12019 of 2021

13.02.2026.

20/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis