LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-289

M KURUVAMMAL Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

Decided On July 26, 2010
M.KURUVAMMAL Appellant
V/S
VICE-CHANCELLOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 10.3.2003.

(2.) The petitioner was a the Lecturer in the respondent Institute and during November 1992 one Dr.Pitchai was sought to be given promotion as Lecturer Senior Grade, with effect from 1.1.1986, by taking into account the services rendered by him in the State Reserve Centre, Madras between 1.7.1080 and 31.7.1984. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11913 of 1993 before this Court to quash the said proceedings. The Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 19.6.2000. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed W.A.No.325 of 2001 and notice was ordered by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 6.2.2001. While the mater stood at that stage, the respondents sought to confer the post of Reader on Dr.Pitchai and issued a letter dated 23.9.2002, requesting him to send eight copies of his bio-data, self appraisal report and other materials for consideration of his candidature for promotion. Since this move of the respondents was touching upon the very issue which was pending in W.A.No.325 of 2001, the petitioner filed W.A.M.P.No.5247 of 2002 to restrain the respondents from promoting Dr.Pitchai as Reader and along with the affidavit, the petitioner produced the copy of the Syndicate Resolution dated 14.8.2002 and the letter dated 23.09.2002 addressed to Dr.Pitchai, in a typed set of papers. The Hon'ble Division Bench by an order dated 11.10.2002, directed that if any promotion is given, the same shall not be given effect to until further orders.

(3.) At that stage, the petitioner received a memo dated 13.1.2003, for production of the letter dated 23.9.2002 addressed to Dr.Pitchai and called upon the petitioner to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her for possession of unauthorised document. The petitioner submitted a reply on 20.1.2003 stating that as the memo dated 13.1.2003 amounts to interference with administration of justice and contempt of Court. The petitioner has also stated that she is being threatened for approaching the Court of law. It was also brought to the notice of the respondents that when an earlier order was passed on 1.10.1994 withholding the petitioner's increment for one year, under similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2152 of 2002 in W.A.No.1151 of 2002, granted stay of such proceedings.