MHC directs Madras Univ, to constitute statutes for transparency

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court (MHC) has directed the Madras University to frame statutes to govern the service conditions of its employees and directed the State to look into the matter.

"If there is a failure on the part of the University to frame such service statutes within six months, we would embark on the State to frame regulations to govern the service conditions of the employees of the varsity," wrote a bench comprising Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu.

Madras University preferred an appeal before MHC to set aside the order issued by the single judge to appoint U T Manisundar (deceased) as Joint Director as per the recommendation of the Task Force of Distance Education Council (DEC).

Manisundar was appointed as a system analyst in the Madras University in October 1985 on a contractual basis for one year. He approached the MHC alleging that the varsity has denied his promotion despite taking an active role in developing the required software in computerizing the university examination results. It was informed that the university constituted an IT expert committee and the syndicate considered the report of the committee, subsequently the nomenclature of Manisundar's post was changed from system analyst to principal system analyst with the same pay scale.

On February 25, 2015, the single judge directed the university to promote Manisundar. Aggrieved by this the university preferred an appeal to set aside the order. V Sudha, the counsel for Madras University submitted that the post of Joint Director is a post where only a senior faculty member of the University in the cadre of Professors is eligible to be appointed and Manisundar seeking to promote him as teaching faculty, is not permissible under the laws of the University. Being a non-teaching staff and the post of professor is not a promotional post from the non-teaching post of system analyst, Manisundar cannot seek such a relief, she added.

After the submission the bench set aside the single judge order, as the order passed by him is without appreciation of materials available on record and contrary to the provisions of the regulations of the University Grants Commission (UGC).