Madras HC Sets Aside Direction To Appoint Colleague As Zoology HOD, Orders Fresh Hearing On Competing Claims

In brief

The question

Whether the Joint Director’s order disturbing the petitioner’s appointment as Head of Department could stand when it was made without giving her an opportunity to be heard.

The court held

The Court set aside the Joint Director’s order dated 8 June 2026 and remitted the matter to that officer for fresh consideration. The Joint Director was directed to hear the petitioner, the sixth respondent, and the management, and to pass orders on the merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks of receiving the Court’s order.

It also directed

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor and Head of the Zoology Department at Seethalakshmi Achi College for Women, challenged the Joint Director of Collegiate Education’s order dated 8 June 2026. That order faulted her appointment as Head of Department before the vacancy arose and directed the Principal to make the appointment in accordance with law.

p. 2

The petitioner disputed the reliance on roster-based seniority and the Director’s 2018 proceedings, and contended that the order was made without giving her a hearing.

pp. 2–3

The sixth respondent claimed seniority and disputed the petitioner’s qualifications and appointment as Head of Department; she stated that her grievance concerned the petitioner’s appointment to that post, not the validity of the petitioner’s underlying appointment as a teacher.

pp. 4–5

02Issues

i.Whether the Joint Director’s order disturbing the petitioner’s appointment as Head of Department could stand when it was made without giving her an opportunity to be heard.

p. 3, 5

ii.Whether the competing claims and allegations concerning seniority and appointment as Head of Department required fresh consideration by the competent authority.

p. 5

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principle of procedural fairness that a person whose appointment is to be disturbed should be given an opportunity to be heard.

p. 5

It directed the competent authority to reconsider the matter on the merits and in accordance with law.

p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 Section 17

04Reasoning

The impugned order affected the petitioner’s appointment as Head of Department, yet the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to respond.

p. 5

The Court also noted that the petitioner and the sixth respondent had raised competing allegations requiring consideration by the competent authority.

p. 5

It therefore did not decide the dispute over seniority, qualifications, or the application of the roster system; instead, it set aside the order and required a hearing for the petitioner, the sixth respondent, and the management before a fresh decision.

p. 6