TNDALU row: HC impleads over 30 ‘under-qualified’ teaching staff

Justice SM Subramaniam on holding that the report submitted by the Grievances committee and certain allegations raised by TNDALU’s former vice-chancellor P Vanangamudi in his counter affidavit are corroborating with the report of the former, said, “In view of the fact that certain serious allegations are raised by the former vice-chancellor, TNDALU, this court is inclined to implead all the law professors, who are all in service, against whom allegations are raised, enabling them to file an affidavit, explaining their nature of appointment, educational qualifications and the eligibility criteria as fixed with reference to the University Grants Commission (UGC) and TNDALU norms.”

“The facts in this regard are to be clarified and ascertained since with this ambiguity, this court would not be in a position to pass final orders. This court is of the concrete opinion that there should not be any ambiguity in respect of facts placed before this court for the purpose of adjudicating the issues raised in the present writ petition,” the judge added.

However, to the allegation that the present vice-chancellor Dr Tamma Suryanarayana Sastry is also not qualified enough to hold the post and the submission by the counsel appearing for him that the allegations are met out in their rejoinder, Justice Subramaniam said, “If the educational qualifications of either the vice-chancellor or professor is questioned, they are bound to establish the grounds by way of an affidavit in their personal capacity and certainly not in their official capacity. Therefore, the submission made by the counsel for TNDALU deserves no consideration.”

Also, impleading the University Grants Commission (UGC) and directing it to furnish the educational qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of vice-chancellor, professor, reader, assistant professor and lecturer in law universities, Justice Subrmaniam said, “The case was heard for a considerable length of time on several hearings. Hence, departing the case would certainly amount to waste of judicial time. Thus, the matter stands posted for reporting compliance and for passing final orders. The registry is directed to list the matter on February 20.”