Nagoorkani P v. The Principal Secretary to Government

ORDER The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- "Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 3rd respondent impugned order in Ref - MKU/SO/(P and D)/2026 Dated

20.03.2026 and QUASH the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a coordinator in the Dr. Kalaignar Karunanidhi Chair at 2nd and 3rd respondent University based on the syndicate resolution dated 25.11.2024 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Honble Court and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."

¶2Heard Mr.A.D.Ganeshamoorthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P.Thambidurai, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice on behalf of R1 and Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar, learned counsel, who takes notice on behalf of R3.

¶3Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the case of the petitioner is that he is a retired 'Associate Professor' in the field of History. When a chair was established to study the life, political, and social achievements of Dr.Kalaignar Karunanidhi, the former Chief Minister, at the 2nd respondent university, the petitioner, who had worked in the History Department, collected substantial information about the former Chief Minister had expressed willingness to serve in the chair.

¶4Considering the petitioner's efforts, the then Vice Chancellor recommended the petitioner's name as the coordinator for the chair. The syndicate approved this nomination in its resolution dated 25.11.2024. However, without any justification, the 4th respondent was suddenly appointed as the coordinator of the Chair, leaving the petitioner out. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶5Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent university pointed out that when the matter was placed before the syndicate for approval of the petitioner's appointment as coordinator, the resolution stated that the convener was authorized to make the final decision in this regard.

¶6The exact wording of the minutes reads: "Resolved that the convener is authorised to take suitable decisions." Therefore, when the matter was referred to the convener, a meeting was held with other officials. During this meeting, one serving professor suggested that a professor from the Humanities Department be nominated. However, without further written reasons, the name of the 4th respondent was nominated as the coordinator for the Dr. Kalaignar Karunanidhi Chair. Consequently, the 4th respondent has been in charge of the chair.

¶7The learned counsel further submits that despite the Higher Education Department directing the university to establish the chair, no funds have been sanctioned, and thus, retired professors or any other persons cannot be appointed as coordinator. Serving professors may be appointed as coordinators on an additional charge basis until the funds are released. If and when the funds are released then only the University will take a decision with reference to the appointment of appropriate coordinator in that regard.

¶8I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

¶9Since the chair is informally established and no rules have been framed regarding the functions or qualifications for the coordinator, it is clear that the 4th respondent was nominated to start the work on an initial basis.

¶10As the position does not carry any post or emoluments and only involves coordination duties, there is no legal right for the petitioner as a retired professor to claim the position. The university's decision to appoint a serving professor as the coordinator cannot be faulted. However, if the university decides to continue with the serving professor after retirement or when the funds are released, the petitioner's claim may also be reconsidered, especially if retired professors are to be considered for the post of coordinator.

¶11The petitioner is directed to submit a representation, outlining their past contributions relevant to the field. This will be appropriately considered by the convener or the syndicate when the further progress of the chair is assessed at a later stage.

¶12With the aforesaid liberty kept open, writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.04.2026 rgm To

¶1The Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶2The Chairman, Convener Committee, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai - 625 021.

¶3The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai - 625 021.

¶4Mayilvaganan B, Professor and Head, School of Mathematic Department, and Convener Committee Member, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai - 625 021. D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

, J.

rgm and W.M.P(MD).No.7247 of 2026

02.04.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 02.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD).No.7247 of 2026 P.Nagoorkani ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Chairman, Convener Committee, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai - 625 021. 3. The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai - 625 021. 4. Mayilvaganan B, Professor and Head, School of Mathematic Department, and Convener Committee Member, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai - 625 021. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, to call for the records of the 3rd respondent impugned order in Ref - MKU/SO/(P and D)/2026 Dated 20.03.2026 and QUASH the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a coordinator in the Dr. Kalaignar Karunanidhi Chair at 2nd and 3rd respondent University based on the syndicate resolution dated 25.11.2024 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Honble Court and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Ganeshamoorthi For R1 : Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate For R3 : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar for Isaac Chambers