Traffic Dr.K.R.Ramaswamy v. The Secretary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 15.12.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM WP.No.18918/2020 [Video Conferencing] Traffic Dr.K.R.Ramasamy .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Secretary Shastri Bhavan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road New Delhi, Delhi.
2.University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi 110 002.
3.The Chief Secretary State of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
4.The Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
5.Dr.Surappa Vice Chancellor Anna University, Guindy Chennai 600 025.
.. Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st to 4th respondents to take necessary action on the petitioner's representation dated 03.11.2020. For Petitioner :
Mr.A.Ramesh Manikandan
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.] (1)The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing the attention of this Court to some scheme, heading of which has not been disclosed either in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition or in the typed set of documents, as to the ineligibility on the part of the 5th respondent to hold the post of Vice Chancellor of Anna University.
(2)The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, the 5th respondent has served as Founder-Director of Indian Institute of Technology, Ropar in Punjab for a period of six years between 2009-2015 and also served as Director [Dean] of Engineering, in the Indian Institute of Science, in the year 2016-2017 and since it is equal to the rank of Vice Chancellor, he cannot continue as the Vice Chancellor of Anna University and the representation submitted in this regard, has failed to invoke any kind of response and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. (3)This Court has carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the materials placed before it.
(4)As pointed out earlier, the petitioner in pages No.13 and 14 of the typed set of documents, has filed the Scheme of the University Grants Commission and what is the nature of the scheme, has not been spelt out either in the representation or in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. Assuming for the sake of argument that the so-called scheme would have applicability to the case of the 5th respondent, a perusal of sub-section [3] of inner page No.12, would come into play in respect of Anna University alone and not in respect of the other Institutions. It is also not clear from the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition as to the equivalence of the Founder - Director / Director [Dean] of Engineering to that of Vice Chancellor of an University and in the absence of any tenable or relevant materials, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and it is highly misconceived. (5)In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar AP To 1.The Secretary Shastri Bhavan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road New Delhi, Delhi.
2.University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi 110 002.
3.The Chief Secretary State of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
4.The Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
+1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No.
+1cc to Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy, Advocate SR.No. 41331 WP.No.18918/2020 A.SK(18.01.2021)