T.Sumathi v. The Vice Chancellor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR WA No. 1935 of 2023 AND CMP NO. 16604 of 2023 T.Sumathi W/O. P.Sivaprakasam, Working As Associate Professor In The Department Of Medical Biochemistry, University Of Madras, Taramani Campus, Chennai - 600 113.

..Appellant Vs

1. The Vice Chancellor Chair Person Of Selection Committee, University Of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

2. The Registrar, University Of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

..Respondents Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in W.P.No. 17967 / 2023 dated 16.06.2023. For Appellant:

Mr.K.Raja For Respondents :

Mr.D.Ravichander, Standing Counsel for R1 & R2

Judgment (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present writ appeal has been instituted challenging the writ order dated 16.06.2023 made in W.P.No.17967 of 2023.

2. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The writ petition has been instituted challenging the show cause notice dated 02.06.2023 calling upon the appellant to submit her explanation for her continuous behaviour of not attending / remaining absent to participate in the Research Review Committee meetings of RUSA 2.0 (RI & QI) conducted on 12.10.2022, 26.10.222, 24.02.2023, 24.03.2023 AND 12.04.2023.

3. Instead of submitting explanation, the appellant has chosen to challenge the show cause notice. The writ Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no writ against the show cause notice is entertainable.

4. This court is of the considered view that mere show cause notice calling upon explanation per se would not provide any cause for institution of writ proceedings. Any attempt to prolong the issues, at no circumstance will be encouraged by this Court. The explanation submitted by the appellant shows that she was reluctant in attending the Research Review Meeting despite the request made by the University of Madras.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant is that RUSA 2.0 program is no way connected with her career and therefore she has not attended the same.

6. A public servant is expected to maintain good conduct both inside the office and outside. When the administration/ superior officials made a request to attend the meeting in the interest of the institution, and in the present case it is a Research Review Committee meeting, the appellant who was holding the post of Associate Professor is bound to participate in the meeting in obedience to the lawful orders passed by the superiors. Disobedience of such lawful instructions would result in insubordination which is a misconduct under the Service Rules. In the present case, if at all any genuine reason is there, the appellant ought to have submitted an explanation in response to the show cause. Instead, she has chosen to file a writ petition which cannot be appreciated.

7. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the writ Court. Consequently, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 04-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order KST

To

1. The Vice Chancellor Chair Person Of Selection Committee, University Of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

2. The Registrar, University Of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.

AND N.SENTHILKUMAR J.

KST AND CMP NO. 16604 OF 2023 04-06-2026