The Madras High Court has issued a directive to the University of Madras, urging the institution to establish statutes that would regulate the service conditions of its staff. This decision came during the court's review of an intra-court appeal challenging a previous order from a Single Judge.

The earlier order had instructed the university to promote an individual to the position of Joint Director based on the recommendations of the Task Force of Distance Education Council, including back-wages and additional monetary perks.

The Division Bench, consisting of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, emphasized the necessity for the university to formalize statutes governing the service conditions of its employees. Simultaneously, the court called upon the State Government to investigate the matter. The Bench specified that if the university failed to establish such service statutes within six months from the judgment's receipt, the Government of Tamil Nadu should step in and create regulations for the service conditions of Madras University employees.

It was clarified, however, that these regulations would not apply to the teaching faculty, as they are already subject to University Grants Commission regulations.

The court criticized the earlier Single Judge's order, stating that it lacked a proper understanding of the available evidence and contradicted University Grants Commission regulations. The appointed counsel for the appellants, V. Sudha, represented the university, while Advocates P.R. Gopinathan and T. Sundaravadanam represented the respondents.

The case revolved around the appointment of an individual as a System Analyst at the University of Madras in 1985 on a contractual basis, which was later regularized with the introduction of computers in the university administration. The individual, now deceased, had raised concerns about being denied promotions for two decades, impeding career advancement. The court highlighted the absence of regulations or statutes governing the service conditions of university employees and expressed dismay at decisions being made solely through Syndicate resolutions without established parameters.

The court rejected the deceased individual's claim for promotion, emphasizing that he had never applied or participated in the selection process for a teaching staff position. It further clarified that even if there were recommendations from the Distance Education Council, they would only apply to open universities and not to distance education, as the Task Force was specifically formed for open universities.

The High Court concluded by expressing concern over the lack of transparency in the university's appointment and promotion processes due to the absence of established statutes. As a result, the writ appeal was allowed, and the Single Judge's order was set aside.

Case: University of Madras & Anr. v. Dr. U.T. Manisundar (Died) & Ors,

W.A.No.1056 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015.