Subsequent Investigation and Audit Objections Allow Reopening of Appointment Issues Despite Prior Writ Dismissal

The petitioner was appointed as a Professor of Tamil Literature at Tamil University on June 3, 2017

In 2023, the Registrar issued a notice (Na.Ka.No.A1/1187/2023) raising audit objections for the year 2021-2022, alleging the petitioner lacked the required ten years’ experience and had failed to sign her PBAS application form

The petitioner challenged this notice (WP 6760/2023) and sought regularization of her services (WP 8747/2023), arguing that these issues were already settled in her favor by the High Court in a previous challenge by an unsuccessful candidate in WP(MD)No.18392 of 2018

Conversely, the University and the Vigilance Department noted that the petitioner’s appointment is part of a larger ongoing investigation (Crime No. 10 of 2019) involving allegations of criminal conspiracy and illegal gratification against former university officials

The court applied the principle of Res Judicata and finality of litigation, observing that prior adjudications do not bar subsequent inquiries if the earlier judgment did not address the "larger issue" of systemic fraud or if new material facts emerge

It also considered the University’s statutory right to conduct audits and the Chancellor’s executive power to constitute an Inquiry Commission under the University’s governing statutes to investigate faculty appointments

The court referenced Section 409 of the IPC and Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act regarding the pending criminal proceedings against university officials

The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the 2022 judgment barred the current notice. It reasoned that the previous University administration, which filed the counter-affidavit defending the petitioner, was the same administration now under investigation for recruitment fraud; thus, their prior stance was unreliable and "unrealistic" to treat as a quietus

The court highlighted that the previous Writ Court had specifically noted that "larger allegations" of corruption were not the subject of that adjudication

Since the Vigilance Department has now filed a final report (Spl.S.C.No.71 of 2025) and an independent Inquiry Commission headed by Justice Dr. M. Jaichandran has found irregularities, these constitute subsequent developments not considered previously

Finally, the court found that the impugned notice merely sought an explanation for audit objections and did not result in immediate civil consequences, thereby not warranting judicial interference

The court dismissed both writ petitions. The prayer for regularization was denied as the Syndicate had resolved not to declare probation for appointments from that period until the completion of investigations