Dr. N. Dharmaraj vs The State of Tamil Nadu and The Registrar, Bharathiyar University

K. Chandru, J.—In these three writ petitions, the Petitioners are applicant to various posts, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the

second Respondent University dated 09-09-2010. The selection process is yet to be completed. In the meanwhile, the State Government by the

impugned communication dated 10.06.2011 called for original files relating to the appointments made in the University to Government along with

the remarks regarding the complaints made by some third persons. In the meanwhile, the University was directed not to take any action for

recruitment or grant promotion and the process should be kept in abeyance and in the subject column of the letter, it is stated that the Government

has received complaints from various quarters and therefore the information is required.

The contention of the Petitioners was that they are in the association functioning in the University and they are responsible for the affairs at their

instance and the Government cannot act and stall the selection process. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that another association has

filed writ petitions before this Court being W.P. No. 23317 of 2010 and W.P. No. 4698 of 2011 and this Court by order dated 07.06.2011

dismissed both the writ petitions and removed the embargo from stalling the selection process and therefore it was contended by the learned

Counsel for the Petitioner that once this Court has cleared the hurdle, on the basis of some insubstantial complaint the selection process cannot be

stalled and the impugned order dated 10.06.2011 is liable to be set aside with a direction to proceed with the selection process.

The contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are thoroughly misconceived. In the present cases, the Petitioners are not concerned

with the impugned communication and the matter is entirely between the State Government and the Bharathiar University.

Section 52 of the Bharathiyar University Act 1981 provides for power to the Government to call for any materials relating to the affairs of the

University. Section 52 of the said Act reads as follows:

Power to obtain information: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the Government may,

by order in writing, call for any information from the University on any matter relating to the affairs of the University and the University shall, if such

information is available with it, furnish the Government with such information within the reasonable period.

Provided that in the case of information which the University considers confidential, the University may place the same before (the Chancellor and

the Pro-Chancellor)

When the State Government has exercised its statutory power and called for information from the University, it is not clear as to how the

Petitioners can prevent the University from furnishing any information. The communication, which, is challenged has nothing to do with the

Petitioners or their appointments, as the case may be, and it is for the University to comply with the direction issued by the State Government. The

delay in completing the selection process cannot be a ground for urging this Court to give a direction, contrary to the powers exercised by the

State Government. The writ petitions are thoroughly misconceived and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are

closed.