Member of Anna University Syndicate moves HC against appointment of Registrar
He has accused the V-C of fabricating the minutes of a Syndicate meeting to get the appointment through. Only the Syndicate can appoint the Registrar as per the Anna University Act, 1978, he says
The Madras High Court on Wednesday sought the response of Anna University to a writ petition led by DMK MLA and Syndicate member I. Paranthamen accusing vice-chancellor R. Velraj of having fabricated the minutes of a meeting to appoint J. Prakash as the Registrar of the university.
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy ordered notice returnable by June 7. In the meantime, he directed the university to preserve the video recordings related to agenda numbers 269.49 and 269.50 of the 269th Syndicate meeting held on January 3 and agenda 270.1 of the 270th meeting held on February 9.
The orders were passed after Senior Counsel P. Wilson, representing the writ petitioner, contended that the appointment of the Registrar had been made in violation of the provisions of the Anna University Act, 1978. He said, Section 14 of the Act empowers only the Syndicate to appoint the Registrar.
Since the posts of Registrar and Controller of Examinations (CoE) in the university had been vacant since May 2021 and May 2022 respectively, a table agenda was presented in the 268th Syndicate meeting held on September 2, 2023 to make persons holding temporary charge as permanent appointees.
The Syndicate refused to accept the proposal and advised the Vice-Chancellor to give a wide publication regarding the appointments and ensure a level playing eld to all eligible candidates. In the 269th meeting, agendas were presented for appointing J. Prakash and P. Sakthivel as the Registrar and the CoE respectively.
A majority of the Syndicate members in attendance objected to both the agendas since the entire les related to the selection process were not placed before them. The Syndicate insisted on deferring the agendas though the Vice-Chancellor was very eager to get the appointments through, Mr. Wilson said.
On January 10, the writ petitioner received an email containing the draft minutes of the 269th meeting, and they read as if the Syndicate had approved the appointments of Mr. Prakash and Mr. Sakthivel. The petitioner wrote back the very next day clarifying that the Syndicate had not approved their appointments.
Thereafter, on January 13, the petitioner received another e-mail containing the nal minutes of the meeting, and they stated that the appointment of Mr. Sakthivel alone was being deferred but the appointment of Mr. Prakash was being conrmed since no concern against him was raised during the January 3 meeting. “The nal minutes are false, fabricated, and illegal. These minutes, circulated at the behest of the Vice-Chancellor fraudulently claim that the Syndicate approved his recommendation,” Mr. Wilson said and insisted on quashing the appointment order issued to Mr. Prakash on February 12.
It was also brought to the notice of the court that the issue of the Registrar’s appointment was discussed in the 270th Syndicate meeting on February 9, when again a majority of the members opposed it. Yet, the appointment order was issued on February 12 by citing the nal minutes of the 269th meeting, the counsel complained.