T.Pugazhenthi v. The State Of Tamilnadu

2024:MHC:6019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on 29.11.2023 Pronounced on 30.01.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P. Nos.7140, 7143, 7145, 4623, 5733, 5538, 5737, 6096, 6131, 6123, 6141, 6178, 6179, 6180, 6181, 6229, 6231, 6401, 6515, 6525, 6519, 6522, 7064, 7066, 19448, 19452, 19455, 19458, 19450, 19451 & 19703 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.8515, 8516, 8510, 5482, 5483, 5484, 6480, 6482, 6696, 6698, 6702, 6705, 6708, 6484, 6485, 6487, 6706, 7162, 7164, 7165, 7189, 7197, 7207, 7256, 7257, 7258, 7259, 7260, 7264, 7265, 7261, 7262, 7263, 7254, 7255, 7333, 7324, 7326, 7332, 7557, 7558, 7745, 7733, 7734, 7736, 7738, 7743, 7748, 7749, 8419, 8423, 24036, 24037, 24046, 24041, 24031, 24033 & 24343 of 2020 W.P.No.7140/2020 and W.M.P.No.8510/2020 T.Pugazhenthi ...

Petitioner /vs/

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Registrar, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai - 600 025.

... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to absorb the petitioners on permanent basis into Anna University service in the post of Executive Assistant (Administration) from the date of merger of erstwhile Anna University of Technology of Coimbatore with Anna University, by taking into consideration of the qualification of the petitioners, with all consequential and other attendant benefits including revision of pay with reference to VI Pay Commission recommendations and VII Pay Commission recommendations, within a time frame. For Petitioners in:

W.P.Nos.6515, 6519, 6522 & 6525 / 2020 : Ms.L.Parvinbanu W.P.Nos.6401 / 2020 : Ms.M.N.Sumathy W.P.Nos.7064 & 7066 / 2020 : Mr.Richardson Wilson for M/s.P.Wilson Associates W.P.Nos.4623, 5538, 8733, 6178, 6179, 6180, 6181, 6096, 5733 & 5737 / 2020 : Mrs.Kavitha Rameshwar W.P.Nos.7140,7145 & 7143 / 2020 : Mr.M.Sneha W.P.Nos.19448, 19452, 19455, 19458, 19450, 19451, 6229, 6231 & 19703 / 2020 : Mr.G.Sankaran Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan W.P.Nos.6131, 6123 & 6141 / 2020 : Mr.T.Sellapandian For Respondents in:

W.P.Nos.7140, 7145, 6229, 6231, 6401, 7064, 7066, 19448, 19452, 19455, 19458, 19450, 19451, 7143/2020 : Mr. G.Nanmaran, Special Govt. Pleader for R1 Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram Standing Counsel for R2 W.P.No.6178, 6179, 4623, 5733, 5538, 5737, 6096, 6131, 6123, 6141, 6179, 6180, 6181, 6515, 6525, 6519, 6522, 19703/2020 : Mr. G.Nanmaran, Special Govt. Pleader for R1 Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram Standing Counsel for R2 & R3 COMMON ORDER The petitioners are the erstwhile employees of five Anna Universities of Technology situated at Tiruchirapalli, Coimbatore, Tirunelveli, Chennai and Madurai. The Government of Tamil Nadu took a policy decision to merge all five Anna Universities of Technology as one with Anna University, Chennai. Accordingly, the Principal Act, Anna University Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") got amended by virtue of Tamil Nadu University Laws (Amendment and Repeal) Act, 2011 (Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 2011). As per the above amendment, all the five Universities got

merged and brought under one umbrella'Anna University' by repealing Anna University of Technology, Trichirapalli Act, 2006, Anna University of Technology, Coimbatore, Act, 2006, Anna University of Technology, Tirunelveli, Act, 2007, Anna University of Technology, Chennai, Act, 2010 and Anna University of Technology, Madurai, Act, 2010.

2. The sum and substance of the submissions of all thelearned counsels appearing for the petitioners is that the Government had gone beyond the scope of Section 33 (9)(a) & (b) of Chapter VIII of the Principle Act and that has caught the petitioners under tender hooks and they are left to feel insecure of their employment. It is submitted that only in order to avoid such anxieties in the minds of the employees, the protective provision in respect of employment has been provided in the statute itself. But the authorities while implementing the same had misconstrued the purpose and object and adopted a different methodology, which had frustrated the whole object without any closure.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent made his submissions only touching upon various committee reports. Much reliance was placed upon the categories given in the report of the Monitoring

Committee and the humongous exercise done by the University subsequent to it through its own various committees constituted in this regard.

4. After the amendment act got notified, all those persons who were working at the said five Anna Universities of Technology or in any of the constituent colleges of the Anna Universities will cease to be the employees of the respective universities or the constituent colleges, as the case may be. An obligation has been cast on the Government to re-allot the employees serving in those erstwhile universities to the amalgamated university or an educational institution or a Government Department after consulting the Vice Chancellors of the Universities in the State and such other authorities as they deem fit.

5. The whole object of bringing an amendment to Chapter VIII of the Principal Act is to ensure job protection to those employees who were serving in all the five different unamalgamated Anna Universities of Technology. The amendment has come into effect from 26.09.2011. The above provision has made it obligatory upon the Government to do the following acts in respect of ensuring job protection to the erstwhile

employees of five different Anna Universities. (i) The government has to pass a General or Special order; (ii) Such order should specify in which of the places mentioned in the provision the employees were allotted and from which date the allotment comes into effect;

(iii) If the Government deems it fit, it may consult the Vice Chancellors of the Universities across the State or such other authorities as it deems it fit.

6. It is learnt that a Monitoring Committee was constituted by the Government to oversee the transition process. One of the objectives of the said Committee is to minimize the hardships to the validly appointed faculty and staff working in University departments / Constituent Engineering Colleges and to explore mechanisms to accommodate them appropriately in the Regional Offices of Anna University and in the Constituent Engineering Colleges.

7. The problem started only from the report submitted by the Committee. Even though the object for constituting the committee is for

smooth transition, it was ironical that its report made the staff transition more complicated. Certain assumptions have been made in the report for including certain working definitions with a caveat that those terms shall not be confused with the terms which are used in the normal Government parlance or University Rules and Regulation. A sub-heading under the caption 'assumptions' has been incorporated purely for the purpose of the report. Those terms are utilized only for ease of reference and not to cloak either the positions or processes with the official approval or recognition. Even though the above words under the said heading of the report of the Monitoring Committee were carefully worded, the confusion continues to exist. For the sake of convenience, the the posts are categorized by using the following terms under the heading assumptions in the report: i) Approved post ii) Regular appointments iii) Proper appointments iv) Improper appointments v) Staff engaged on an adhoc basis, etc.

8. It has been further pointed out in the report that some of the positions are given with a higher start of pay (Advance Increment). After

having given such segregation, certain recommendations have also been given for redeploying the employees to their respective colleges, departments or institutions as stated already. Certain staffs were considered as excess and some designations were found to be not proper and were redesignated.

9. Consequent to the Monitoring Committee report a Government Order in G.O.Ms.452, Higher Education (I1) Department, dated 20.10.2015 has been issued. But the said Government Order has taken away all the terms like "Approved Posts", "Regular Appointments", "Proper Appointments", "Improper Appointments", "Staff engaged on an ad hoc basis" etc., in all seriousness and context in which those terms are used in the Government or the University rules and regulations.

10. In fact one of the terms of reference to the Monitoring Committee is to list out the persons serving in Anna Universities of Technology as stipulated under Sub-Section (9)(a) of Section 33 of Chapter VIII of Tamil Nadu Universities Laws (Amendment and Repeal) Act, 2011 and to suggest ways and means to implement the mandates of Sub-Section (9)(b) of

Section 33 of Chapter VIII of Tamil Nadu Universities Laws (Amendment and Repeal) Act, 2011. Instead of segregating the categories of the persons working in the erstwhile Anna Universities under the heads of "Teaching and Non-Teaching Employees' with their respective designation, the Committee had taken the pain of segregating them by adopting the terms used for the ease of reference (with due reservations) made under the heading assumptions.

11. Despite those terms are placed with reservations, they have been taken with all seriousness in the context of their strict interpretations given by the Government or the University under its rules and regulations. Thus the simple task was made complicated and later it got compounded further.

12. The status of the employees could have been either regular or ad hoc as how they have been in the earlier unamalgamated Anna Universities of Technology. All those regularly appointed employees ought to have been treated as regular employees and all those who have been working on adhoc or temporary basis should have been considered as how they have been serving. Instead of taking the rightful course to accomplish the

purpose of Section 14 of the Amended Act, which had amended Section 33 of the Principle Act, by inserting Sub-sections (9)(a) & (b) with an object of ensuring job protection to all those employees who were part of the erstwhile un-amalgamated Universities, the terms of reference and the object of the amended provision got diverted in view of the terminologies adopted in the report and the understanding that have been subsequently utilized in all Government Orders.

13. So far as the Government is concerned, the statutory obligation conferred upon the Government is to identify how conveniently the employees can be placed in any of the institutions mentioned in the provision itself either on its own or in consultation with any of the Vice Chancellors across the State or any authorities the Government deems fit in this regard. Hence, no Government orders can be issued exceeding the scope of the statutory obligation and to achieve something else other than the object of the statutory provision.

14. Apart from the successive committees continued to be appointed by the Government including the Dr.R.Anandakumar Committee, the Anna

University has also appointed a Scrutiny Committee and other committees. The statute does not impose any obligation to identify and segregate the employees working in either of the unamalgamated Anna Universities of Technology under the categories of employees appointed against sanctioned posts, employees appointed without appropriate qualification, employees appointed without competitive process, employees appointed without communal rotation and employees appointed with higher pay band.

15. Once all those employees who were working under the erstwhile unamalgamated Anna Universities of Technology have been accepted as employees belonging to either of the University / Educational Institution under the control of the Government / University or the Government Department, none of the employees should have been discriminated by employing phrases like "Validly appointed". In other words, all those employees who have been appointed and who were working in the erstwhile unamalgamated Anna Universities of Technology were accepted as "Valid Appointments"and employment protection has been given to them under the Amended Act. (Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 2011). If at all any distinction to be made, it can be only between 'Regular Appointments' and

'Ad-hoc or temporary appointments' and not as 'Valid Appointments'and'Invalid Appointments'.

16. If the amalgamated Anna University of Technology does not have any type of posts or designation in which some of the employees have worked in the erstwhile unamalgamated Anna Universities of Technology, to that extent orders need to be issued for appropriately re-designating the names of the posts with due pay protection. If the administrative structure of Anna University does not accommodate all those employees who have been working in the erstwhile unamalgamated Anna Universities of Technology, it is the obligation of the Government to find out solutions and accommodate them elsewhere in accordance with the procedure mandated under Section 33 (9)(a) & (b) of Chapter VIII of the Principal Act.

Even those who have been recruited against any sanctioned posts by the respective unamalgamated Anna University of Technology may also be deployed elsewhere during the process of transition. The unamalgamated Anna Universities and Technology even while appointing persons in excess of the approved posts, but through regular mode would have thought of creating posts for their early absorption.

worked at the various unamalgamated Anna universities would have thought of amalgamation and any consequent uncertainty of their employment status.

17. The Monitoring committee identified some of the post as 'Regular Appointment' but excess than the approved posts. Once an employee has been regularly appointed, his appointment cannot be called as 'Irregular appointment' at any remote point of time and that too in view of the policy taken by the Government and not at the whims of the employees to amalgamate all the five Anna Universities of Technology.

18. In fact, the objectives set by the Monitoring Committee by adding the words'Validly Appointed'had gone beyond the scope of Terms of Reference No.ii, which is given as under:

" 5. Terms of Reference:

... ii) List out the persons serving in Anna Universities of Technology as stipulated in sub-section 9(a) of Section 33 of Tamil Nadu University Laws (Amendment and Repeal) Act, 2011. Suggest ways and means to implement the sub-section 9(b) of Section 33 of Tamil Nadu University Laws (Amendment and Repeal) Act, 2011."

19. But under the heading'Main Objectives' of the Monitoring Committee Report the word 'Validly Appointed' are inserted at point No.2 as below:

" 6.Main Objectives:

... 2. To minimize hardship to the validly appointed faculty and Staff working in University Departments / Constituent Engineering Colleges and to explore mechanisms to accommodate them appropriately in the Regional Offices of Anna University and in Constituent Colleges."

20. The above terms adopted in the report had deviated and diverted the course of transition to a different direction and made it an endless process. In fact the statutory provision has given liberty to the Government to make the erstwhile employees of the unamalgamated Anna Universities of Technology as the employees of the amalgamated Anna Universities and Technology or other educational institutions or in any Government Department either through an one stroke common order or through several special orders. The exercise could have been seamlessly made by consulting the Vice Chancellor of the Universities across the State or other Institutions for knowing the vacancy positions in their respective institutions including the Government Departments for properly accommodating the staff or by creating posts through Special Government

orders for the purpose of re-allotting all the employees in a hassle free manner.

21. The words "Shall stand allotted" found in Section 33 (9)(b) of Chapter VIII of the Principal Act would only expect orders from the Government to fulfil the said mandate. Various committees of the Universities and audit teams have raised various questions and objections in each and every stage and for which several orders and approvals have been given frequently. But, all those exercises cannot attain finality unless those staffs who have been working in the erstwhile Anna Universities of Technology are segregated only into two primary categories of 'Regular Appointments'and 'Ad-hoc Appointments' and nothing more.

22. As stated already, the adoption of the words'Valid' in the objectives of the Monitoring Committee is just an excess of Terms of Reference No.ii. and it has led to an anomalous situation where the subsequent Dr.R.Anandakumar Committee has referred some of the postings as "Invalid". The so called 'valid' and 'invalid' appointments interplay with other connected terms like 'Excess Appointments' and

'Improper Appointments'. It is reiterated that the above terms have been used in the report of Monitoring Committee for the purpose of assumptions and not for any adverse actions.

23. Added to this, there are certain other terms used in Paragraph No.9.1 of the Monitoring Committee Report with a clear caveat that those operational categories created for ease of reference cannot be confused to the terms which are commonly used in Government or University rules and regulations. Even though the Monitoring Committee had understood the scope of reference and object of the legislation, the successive authorities got tempted to misunderstand all the terms like "Approved post", "Regular appointments", "Improper Appointments", "Staff engaged on ad-hoc basis" in government parlance and had reacted accordingly. The broader categories detailed in paragraph No.9.1(assumptions) of the Monitoring Committee Report are given as under:

• Posts approved by the Finance Committee / Syndicate / Government are termed as Approved Posts.

• The recruitment of Teaching Faculty / Non-Teaching Staff by a selection committee after open advertisement of vacancies against the Approved Posts are treated as Regular Appointments • The term "Proper Appointment" has been used to denote the Regular appointment of Faculty / Staff with the required

Qualifications against approved posts.

• Faculty / Staff appointed on a Regular basis, against approved posts but unqualified to hold the post at the time of recruitment have been categorized as Improper Appointments.

• The term "Staff engaged on an ad hoc basis" has been used to denote the Faculty / Staff engaged on a contract basis / consolidated pay / Daily Wages to meet exigent needs of the University / Constituent College. These are treated as purely ad hoc appointments.

• Cases where faculty, have been given higher start of Pay (Advancement Increment), which leads to deviation in pay fixation and such cases of Improper pay fixation would have to be addressed in the unified structure.

• Faculty / Staff working on Deputation basis have been identified for transfer back to their parent department."

24. Those assumptive categories like 'Improper Appointments'in the Monitoring Committee Report are defined as persons who have been appointed on regular basis against the approved post but unqualified to the post at the time of recruitment. From the above words used in the report, it is not known about the qualification prescribed during the relevant point of time by the respective Universities to appoint those individual on regular basis. Even if those persons are falling short of any of the qualification prescribed by the amalgamated Anna University of Technology to hold such post, an order to approve the same has to be passed as an onetime measure for the purpose of implementing the mandate of sub-Section

(9)(a)&(b) of Section 33 of Chapter VIII of Tamil Nadu Universities Laws (Amendment and Repeal) Act, 2011. There is no question of 'Excess Appointment" or "Improper Appointment',in view of the limited scope for which the said terms were used in the report.

25. It appears from G.O.No.452, Higher Education (11) Department dated 20.10.2015 that the entire re-allotment should be done only to the Anna University alone. The issues pointed out by the Scrutiny Committee are extracted hereunder:

"6. The Scrutiny Committee has brought out the following issues in the Appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff in erstwhile Anna Universities of Technology, based on the remarks and observations of Monitoring Committee:- i) Appointments of staff without the sanction of posts Certain appointments both in teaching and non-teaching categories were done without the sanction of posts by Finance Committee and Syndicate of the respective Universities of Technology concerned. Further, the excess posts may be shown against the revised sanction of posts sanctioned by the Finance committee and Syndicate. ii) Appointments without appropriate qualification Certain appointments were made without proper qualification i.e. the qualification required for the particular branch or for the related subjects and not possessing teaching experience required for the post has been selected and continuing in different departments.

iii) Appointments without competitive process Certain appointments were made without following proper procedures like calling for applications by advertisement through Dailies/ Employment exchange as the case may be.

(iv) Appointments without communal rotation Roster system has not been followed in most of the cases of recruitment in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff.

v) Appointments made with higher Pay band Certain entry level posts in administrative wing of Anna University of Technology, Coimbatore such as Executive Assistant / Skilled Assistant / Deputy Manager are unique designations and posts and posts are on much higher pay band and grade pay which is not available either in any Government or in any other University.

Further, certain appointments were made with higher pay fixation against the norms without assigning any justification which requires thorough scrutiny and modification in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff of the erstwhile Anna Universities of Technology. vi) Appointments made on Adhoc basis Certain teaching and non-teaching staff have been engaged on an adhoc basis on contract (consolidated) / Contract (Time scale appointment until further orders) / daily wages in the Constituent Colleges and in the University departments of erstwhile Anna Universities of Technology. vii) Vigilance enquiry is pending against all the teaching and non-teaching staff appointments made in the erstwhile Anna University of Technology, Tiruchirappalli during the term of Dr.V.Ramachandran and Dr.P.Devadas Manoharan, as Vice- Chancellor.

viii) Vigilance enquiry report in respect of Regional Office, Coimbatore is awaited.

26. For the sake of convenience and to understand the job protection post amalgamation and other aspects of amalgamation in a better manner, the relevant portion of new amended Chapter VIII of the Principal Act is extracted hereunder:

" (9)(a) Every person who, immediately before the notified date is serving in the Anna University of Technology, Trichirappalli, Anna University of Technology, Coimbatore, Anna University of Technology, Tirunelveli, Anna University of Technology, Chennai and Anna University of Technology, Madurai or in any of the constituent colleges of that Universities shall cease to be an employee of that Universities, or of the constituents colleges, as the case may be;

(b) As soon as may be, after the notified date, the Government may, after consulting the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities in the State and such other authorities, as they deem fit, direct, by general or special order.. that the employees referred to in Clause (a), as specified in such order, "shall stand allotted 'to serve in connection with the affairs of an "University or an educational institution or a Government department, with effect on and from the date, as may be specified in such order."

27. As regards the post of Executive Assistants, in response to Audit Slip No.60 issued by the AG Audit by taking note of the discrepancies in the information placed before Dr.R.Anandakumar Committee with regard to their higher pay, the issue has already beenplaced before the 5th Finance Committee meeting of the University held on 26.11.2008. In the said

meeting, it was resolved to ratify the recruitment by creation of six additional post of Executive Assistant (Administration). Hence the Executive Assistants (Administration) are considered as sanctioned posts and there is no irregularity in their recruitment and creation.

28. The Government passed the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.91, Higher Education (I1) Department dated 14.07.2017 in response to the proposal sent by the University to form a committee comprising of Joint Secretaries to Government of various departments to examine the so called 'Improper Appointments' made by the erstwhile Anna Universities of Technology and for further action for the absorption of the staff members.

29. Firstly, it has to be clarified that there is no question of absorption except in respect of those employees who have already been employed on an Ad-hoc, temporary or daily wage basis. The statutes contemplate only re-allotment and not absorption. The terms used in the statute is only on an understanding that the erstwhile employees working in the various Anna Universities have already been appointed/regularised/absorbed and in view of the amalgamation they only need to be re-allotted to the newly amalgamated university or various institutions as stated in Sub Section

9(a) & (b) of Section 33 of New Chapter VIII of the Principal Act.

30. Before the proposal received from the Registrar of the Anna University, the Government has issued orders directing the Anna University to form separate committees to examine the issues in respect of the so called 'Improper appointments'. It has to be further clarified that the statutory provision has only directed the Government to consult the Vice Chancellors of various Universities across the State before issuing orders for re-allotment of the erstwhile employees of the unamalgamated Anna Universities to the amalgamated Anna University or other educational institutions or Government Departments. Had the consultative process was done in an effective and objective manner without issuing directions to the universities to undertake various exercises at their end, much of time, energy and sources could have been saved or better utilized.

31. The petitioners are aggrieved due to the mis-understanding of the enabling provision for the job protection provided to them under the amendment act. Analysing each and every individual case is another unnecessary exercise and that might add up to the confusion that had

already been made.

32. Even those employees who are said to have been employed on ad-hoc basis and who have completed more than 10 years of service from the date when the act came into force have also not been regularized. Since their services have been extracted for years together it requires a Scheme for absorption of those who had been employed on ad-hoc basis. So far as others are concerned they have to be given with orders of re-allotment in compliance of Section 33 (9)(a) & (b) of Chapter VIII of the Principle Act.

33. So far as those employees who have already been allotted and for whom orders have been issued, there need not be any disturbance. But all those employees who have statutory protection under the Amended Act and who have not yet seen the light of the day visualize a Damocles sword hanging on their head.

34. Since the whole exercise has been done on a wrong understanding of the provision by taking a wrong direction by getting influenced by the term 'Validly Appointed', mentioned in the objectives

prescribed by the first Monitoring Committee, the whole confusion has to be now resolved by taking all fruitful and immediate actions in the form of issuing orders to the petitioners, as stated already. It is clarified that only the allotment of the employees will come into effect from the date of the order, but their status as 'Approved employees' would relate back to the date of their respective appointment in the respective unamalgamated universities.

35. It is learnt that the petitioner in W.P.No.7143 of 2020 died. However steps have not be taken so far for the deceased petitioner. The terms of this order is equally applicable to the employment of the petitioner in W.P.No.7143 of 2020 also and hence it is for the respondents to pass appropriate orders in terms of the orders passed against the other petitioners in these batch of writ petition. However, a separate order will be passed in W.P.No.7143/2020, after the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner are impleaded.

35. In view of the above stated reasons, these Writ Petitions are disposed and the report of the Five Member Committee, dated Nil,

constituted by the Registrar of Anna University, Chennai, under G.O.Ms.No.91, Higher Education (I1) Department dated 14.07.2017 is hereby quashed and the first respondent is directed : (i) to issue orders to all those regular employees who have been working in the erstwhile unamalgamated Anna Universities of Technology for allotting them either to the amalgamated Anna University of Technology, other educational institutions or Government departments, depending on the vacancy position with continuity service and all other consequential and attendant benefits and in compliance of Section 33 (9)(a) & (b) of Chapter VIII of the Principal Act, by making due consultations with the stakeholders mentioned in the said provision, if necessary.

(ii) While doing so, if any difficulties or discrepancies are encountered due to any difference in giving the job title, appropriate orders for re-designation shall be issued with due pay protection.

one-time measure.

(iv) Such one-time measure shall also be made in respect of all those employees who have been appointed on ad-hoc basis and whose services have been utilised for all these years without any break, but still remain without regularisation.

It is obligatory on the part of the Government to take all appropriate steps to fulfil its own promise and formulate any scheme for creating new posts, issuing / re-issuing / consolidating of any of the existing Government Orders already issued with necessary amendments as an complete one-time measure and complete the transition process without allowing the employees to have unnecessary anxieties of their job security. All appropriate orders in the line of the above direction shall be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 30.01.2024 Index: Yes Speaking order Netural citation : Yes bkn

To:

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Registrar, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai - 600 025.

R.N.MANJULA ,J.

bkn Pre-delivery order in 30.01.2024