Dr.S.Venkatakrishnan vs The State of Tamil nadu

2026:MHC:3550
W.P.No.16153 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.08.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.16153 of 2023
and
W.M.P.Nos.15544 and 15546 of 2023
Dr.S.Venkatakrishnan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
St. George Fort, Chennai.
2. The Director,
The Directorate of Technical Education,
Chennai.
3. The Registrar (I/C),
Annamalai University,
Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram,
Tamil Nadu – 608002. ... Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in
transfer order in proceedings in No.14596/B3/2023 dated 18.04.2023 issued
by the second respondent and also consequential relieving order issued by the
third respondent in University Order No.171/23 (C) dated 24.04.2023 and
quash the same as illegal and unreasonable and direct the respondents to
restore the original position to the petitioner.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 11:24:48 am )

2026:MHC:3550
W.P.No.16153 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan,
Senior Counsel
for M/s. A.Vinu Pradha
For Respondents : Mr.V.Sivalingam,
Government Advocate (for R1 & R2)
Mr.P.Godson Swaminathan (for R3)

O R D E R
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned
order dated 18.04.2023, whereby the petitioner was appointed on agreement
basis for a period of three years and posted as a Lecturer in the Government
Polytechnic College, Uthangarai.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that, after successfully completing his B.E. Degree in Mechanical
Engineering, the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Lecturer in
Annamalai University, vide appointment order dated 05.03.2004, and served
as a Lecturer for a period of six years. In the meanwhile, he obtained an
M.Sc. Degree in Computer Science from Annamalai University in May 2006
and subsequently obtained a Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering in
December 2016. It is also his submission that he was promoted to the post of
Assistant Professor in the year 2010.
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 11:24:48 am )

2026:MHC:3550
W.P.No.16153 of 2023
2.1. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, pursuant to
G.O.(D) No.106, Higher Education (H1) Department, dated 06.04.2023, the
Government decided to redeploy the surplus Assistant Professors. However,
instead of redeploying them to an equivalent cadre, they were posted to lower
cadre posts. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the
posting of an Assistant Professor of an Engineering College in a Polytechnic
College would amount to posting a person holding a higher cadre post to a
lower cadre post. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel
placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
Annamalai University Vs. A.Akila (W.A.No.1309 of 2024 etc., batch, dated
24.03.2025).
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent
would contend that, due to administrative mismanagement over the years in
Annamalai University, there was excess staff, which resulted in a severe
financial burden. Therefore, the Government took over the management and,
based upon the recommendations of the Administrator, various measures
were taken to accommodate the surplus teaching and non-teaching staff and
other employees in other Government Departments, Offices and Colleges,
without terminating or retrenching them. Accordingly, the petitioner, who
3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 11:24:48 am )

2026:MHC:3550
W.P.No.16153 of 2023
was working as an Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering, was
posted as an Assistant Professor in the Government Polytechnic College.
3.2. The learned counsel for the third respondent would further submit
that, pursuant to the policy decision taken by the Government in G.O.(D)
No.106, Higher Education (H1) Department, dated 06.04.2023, the petitioner
was redeployed to the Government Polytechnic College, Uthangarai. The
judgment relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the
present case. It is also contended that the petitioner has not challenged G.O.
(D) No.106, Higher Education (H1) Department, dated 06.04.2023. Hence, he
prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side and perused the materials available on record.
5. The fundamental issue that arises for consideration in the present
Writ Petition is as to whether a person holding a higher cadre post can, at the
time of absorption or redeployment, be accommodated in a lower cadre post.
At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the order passed in the instant case
on 20.08.2026, which reads as follows:-
“ The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the present
issue squarely covers by the Division Bench judgment in
4/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 11:24:48 am )

2026:MHC:3550
W.P.No.16153 of 2023
Annamalai University Vs. A.Akila ( W.A.No.1309 of 2024 etc.,
batch dated 24.03.2025), wherein it is observed as follows:-
“7. In view of the said understanding reached, these
appeals are disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The 263 employees, who had signed the offer that
has been produced before us will be re-deployed to similar or
equivalent post in Government departments, which carry the
same scale of pay;
(ii) They will also be given the benefits of the pay
fixation done by the 7th Pay Commission with effect from
01.04.2018 notionally and with monetary benefits from
01.04.2025;
(iii) Annual increments will also be provided on the
notional fixation of the salary with effect from 01.04.2018 as
per the recommendation on the 7 th Pay Commission and
monetary benefits of such annual increments will flow from
01.04.2025. They will also be assured of security in
employment with all service benefits till the age of
superannuation. This re-deployment will be for a period of
three years and will be extended depending of the exigencies.
These 263 persons have also undertaken to join the re-
deployed post by 01.04.2025.”
2.The learned Senior Counsel would further invite the attention of
this Court that in the above case, the learned Advocate General
himself has admitted before the Division Bench that those
petitioners, who are similarly placed to this petitioner, will be
accommodated by way of a deployment in the same or equivalent
5/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 11:24:48 am )

2026:MHC:3550
W.P.No.16153 of 2023
post commensurate with their educational qualification and
experience and pay parity. The learned Senior Counsel would
submit that the present writ petition is covered by the above
decision.
3.At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the respondent seeks for a short accommodation to get
instructions in this regard.
4.Post on 21.08.2026 under the caption “For Orders”.
6. Today, when the learned counsel for the third respondent advanced
his arguments, he would submit that the aforesaid judgment is not applicable
to the facts of the present case, since the said judgment relates to non-
teaching staff, whereas the petitioner herein is a teaching staff. Though the
said contention appears to be attractive from the perspective of service
jurisprudence, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to take a
different view. Here, the petitioner is not challenging the decision to redeploy
him. His grievance is confined to the manner of such redeployment, namely,
that he ought to have been redeployed to a similar or equivalent post in a
Government Department carrying the same scale of pay.
6/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 11:24:48 am )

2026:MHC:3550
W.P.No.16153 of 2023
7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the third respondent would
submit that, without challenging G.O.(D) No.106, Higher Education (H1)
Department, dated 06.04.2023, the petitioner cannot challenge the
consequential impugned order. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the
petitioner is not challenging the redeployment as such. His grievance is only
with regard to his posting to a lower cadre post. Therefore, as rightly
contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in A.Akila’s case (cited supra) is squarely
applicable to the facts of the present case.
8. In view of the above, by following the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in A.Akila’s case (cited supra), the impugned orders
dated 18.04.2023 and 24.04.2023 are hereby quashed. However, the
respondents are at liberty to redeploy the petitioner, if necessary to a similar
or equivalent post in any Government Department, by taking into
consideration of the ratio of A.Akila’s case (cited supra), carrying the same
scale of pay.
7/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 11:24:48 am )

2026:MHC:3550
W.P.No.16153 of 2023
9. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
31.08.2026

kv
Index : Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
St. George Fort, Chennai.
2. The Director,
The Directorate of Technical Education,
Chennai.
3. The Registrar (I/C),
Annamalai University,
Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram,
Tamil Nadu – 608002.
8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 11:24:48 am )

2026:MHC:3550
W.P.No.16153 of 2023
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kv
W.P.No.16153 of 2023
31.08.2026

9/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 11:24:48 am )