Smt. Dr. Parvathy Rajan vs The Registrar, University of Madras, Madras-5, The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, College Road, Madras-6 and The Vice Chancellor, University of Madras, Madras-5

Jayasimha Babu, J.—The petitioner was a member of Madras University Syndicate having been elected to that office while she was a

member of the Senate of University. Her membership in the Senate was by virtue of the position that was held by her as principal for over 3 years

of a college afflicted to the University. S. 14(8) of Madras University Act, 1923 which provides for such ex officio membership of the Senate,

reads thus

S. 14. The Senate shall consist of the following persons, namely:-

Ex-Officio Members:

(1) The Chancellor

(8) The principals of afflicted colleges who have served as principals for not less than three years....

At the time of her election to the Syndicate in the year 1992, the petitioner was holding the position of the Principal of Quid-e-Millet Government

College for Women, Madras-2. The petitioner was to told office as a member of the Syndicate for a period of three years from 31.10.1992 that is

till 30.10.1995.

The petitioner who is in Government service was transferred and posted as Principal in Special Coaching Institute for Backward Classes, Anna

Nagar, Madras, by order No. 623 dated 10-8-94, issued by the Education, Science and Technology Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,

Madras. It is her case that immediately thereafter she went and remained on leave till she was again transferred to and was appointed as the

Principal of another College affiliated to the Madras University, namely, The Government Arts College, Krishnagiri, by G.O.Mt. No. 785/ dated

19.10.1994..

The University having held that her membership of the Syndicate and Senate had come to an end by reason of her transfer from the Quid-E-

Millet Government College for Women, this petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the university''s letter dated 9-12-1994, and for

consequential relief''s.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that notwithstanding the transfer, in view of this petitioner having gone on leave immediately after

the transfer, the petitioner should be treated as the Principal of the College, from which she proceeded on leave. This argument overlooks the fact

that on her transfer, a new Principal was in fact posted to that College, and petitioner ceased to be the Principal of that College. Her membership

in the Senate and Syndicate being dependent on her continuing to hold the office of Principal of a College afflicted to the University on the

petitioner demitting the office of Principal of the affiliated College, her membership in the Senate, as also the Syndicate, automatically ceased.

The object of S. 14(8) of the Act is to ensure the participation in the Senate of affiliated Colleges through the Principals provided they have

served as Principals for not less than three years. The membership in the Senate is only by virtue of their holding the office of the Principal of the

affiliated College which is directly affected by the Rules, Regulations and policies framed by the Senate from time to time. This provision does not

contemplate the continued membership of the senate, even after the person ceases to hold the office by virtue of which status of being a member of

the Senate was acquired.

It is unfortunate that the petitioner had to lose her membership in the Syndicate to which she had been duly elected for a three years term, in this

manner. The fact that the writ petition was subsequently posted as Principal of an affiliated College at Krishnagiri does not have the effect of

restoring her membership of the Syndicate.

It was submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal

and that the Tribunal had passed certain orders, as result of which, the petitioner was posted as the Principal to the College at Krishnagiri. The

University of Madras, not being the authority which passed the transfer order, cannot in any way be responsible for the petitioner''s transfer from

one College to another.

The impugned order is in accordance with the provisions of the Madras University Act and has to be sustained.

Counsel submitted that the transfer of the petitioner was with the object of depriving her of her membership in the Syndicate. That is not a matter

which-can be gone into in this forum as only the Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction with regard to such matters, petitioner being a Government

Servant. The University at any rate is not the authority which effected the transfer or cancel it to be effected. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.