Introduction:
In the case of Prof. Dr. M. Srinivasan v. The Chancellor of Universities and Others, W.P.No.5862 of 2024, the Madras High Court dismissed a challenge against the amendment made to Statute 25, Chapter IX, Volume 1, University Calendar 2016 of the Madras University. The amendment introduced a system where the position of Head of Department (HoD) would be assigned on a rotational basis based on merit and performance, instead of being held by the senior-most professor until retirement or promotion. Dr. M. Srinivasan, a professor in the Department of Criminology, challenged this amendment, arguing that it violated Section 30 of the Madras University Act as the mandatory opinion survey report was neither obtained nor circulated to Senate members. The university, however, maintained that the amendment was legally and procedurally sound, ensuring equal opportunity and fostering efficiency in departmental leadership.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
Dr. M. Srinivasan contended that the amendment was unconstitutional and arbitrary, violating the provisions of the Madras University Act. He argued that the amendment was passed without following due process, as the opinion survey report, which was a prerequisite for such changes, was not properly conducted or shared with the Senate. He further stated that the previous system, where the senior-most professor held the position of HoD until retirement or promotion, ensured stability and academic continuity. He also argued that designating HoDs on a rotational basis without considering seniority would lead to administrative instability and inefficiency in academic management.
Arguments of the University:
The University of Madras countered these claims by asserting that the amendment was legally valid and aimed at fostering efficiency and inclusivity. The university’s counsel argued that the existing system unfairly restricted opportunities for other equally competent senior professors. The university stated that the rotational system would allow various experienced professors to contribute their unique perspectives, ideas, and expertise to departmental administration. The counsel further emphasized that all due procedures were followed, including consultations, deliberations in the Syndicate, and approval by the Senate and the Chancellor. The amendment, they argued, was a well-thought-out measure to ensure that no single professor monopolized the position indefinitely, thus promoting a democratic and performance-driven academic environment.
Court’s Judgment:
The bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar ruled in favour of the university, upholding the amendment. The court observed that the HoD designation was an administrative role and not a promotion, meaning it did not alter the service conditions or entitle the holder to additional benefits. The court emphasized that professors could not claim the post as an absolute right, as it was merely a supervisory role rather than a substantive position with enhanced pay or privileges. The court also noted that even in cases of promotion, what could be claimed was only the right to be considered, not an absolute right to be promoted.
The court acknowledged that the previous system, where the senior-most professor remained HoD until retirement or promotion, often deprived other eligible professors of leadership opportunities. It held that the rotational system provided a fair chance to all qualified professors and would enhance departmental efficiency by introducing fresh perspectives. The court also rejected the claim that due process was not followed, stating that the amendment had undergone all necessary procedural formalities, including consideration by the Syndicate, approval by the Senate, and assent by the Chancellor.
The court concluded that the amendment was legally sound, fair, and in line with the principles of equality and administrative efficiency. Finding no merit in the petition, the court dismissed it, reaffirming the university’s authority to amend statutes in a manner that benefits academic governance.