An appointee cannot be required to explain recruitment irregularities attributable to the appointing authority.

The petitioner, a Technical Officer at the University of Madras’s National Centre for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, was appointed on a time-scale basis on 19 June 2015 to a sanctioned post and placed on two years’ probation.

In 2023, following a Local Fund Audit report alleging procedural irregularities in his appointment, the University issued a show-cause notice dated 5 May 2023.

The petitioner challenged that notice and sought confirmation/regularisation and consequential service and monetary benefits.

Whether the University’s show-cause notice, issued following Local Fund Audit objections concerning the petitioner’s appointment, was legally sustainable

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regularisation or confirmation, and to a declaration of probation and consequential benefits

The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 224 of 2023, which held that government funding and audit of a university’s accounts do not, by themselves, permit interference with its internal administration, including appointments and promotions.

The Court also referred to Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129, in connection with the petitioner’s probation, and to W.A. No. 1056 of 2015, which the Court cited for the proposition that the Madras University had no statutes governing the service conditions of its employees.

The University relied on Ordinance 7, Chapter XXIV, requiring appointments or promotions to be made by the Syndicate on the recommendation of its Establishment Committee, and on the asserted requirement for Governing Council approval of the selection committee.

The Court found that the petitioner had served in a sanctioned post on a time scale since 2015, while the impugned notice was issued only in 2023 on the basis of the audit report.

Applying the Division Bench’s ruling, it held that the audit objection did not provide a proper basis for interfering with the University’s internal administration.

Further, the alleged procedural irregularity concerned the appointing authority; the Court considered it fallacious to require the petitioner to explain his participation in the recruitment process when no fault in that participation or process had been identified.

As the petitioner occupied a regular vacancy, the Court held that further regularisation was unnecessary.

It noted that no evidence showed either extension or rejection of probation and that his performance had been rated “satisfactory”; considering his continuous service and the authorities cited, it held that his probation was entitled to be declared.

It held that further regularisation was unnecessary because the petitioner had been appointed to a regular vacancy, but held that his probation was entitled to be declared.

Any monetary or service benefits due were to be settled within eight weeks of receipt of the order; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.