2017 (3) TMI 1950 - HC - Indian Laws

Identification of surplus Assistant Professors in the Department of Tamil Studies and Research based on the workload prevailing therein - obtaining report from the Academic Council faculty and Board of Studies and consequently appoint those surplus Assistant Professors in other Government Colleges before taking a final decision to send the teachers on deputation on the ground of surplus staff. HELD THAT - It is pertinent to point out that this writ petition is a belated one. The reason is that a year ago when the respondent University took a policy decision to depute 369 teaching staff members to other Government colleges on the ground of they being surplus and when the said policy decision was put to challenge before this Court this Court upheld the policy decision of the respondent University observing that the respondent University by showing compassion has not decided to terminate their services but has rather deputed them to other Government colleges. Likewise in the instant case as well after identifying further surplus staff if the respondent University takes a further decision to send its surplus staff members to other Government colleges on deputation basis this Court is of the view that the petitioners can in no way be prejudiced to come to this Court seeking a direction as aforestated inasmuch as their services are not terminated by which their very likelihood may be affected. In such view of the matter further action if any taken by the respondent University on the ground of it being overstaffed cannot be interfered with. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Identifying surplus Assistant Professors in a department for reassignment before deputation.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to identify surplus Assistant Professors in the Department of Tamil Studies and Research based on workload and appoint them in other Government Colleges before sending them on deputation due to surplus staff. The court notes that the petition is belated as a similar policy decision was upheld previously by the court, where surplus staff were deputed to other colleges instead of termination. The court opines that if the respondent University decides to send further surplus staff on deputation, the petitioners cannot be prejudiced as their services are not terminated, and they can seek a direction if needed. Therefore, the court dismisses the writ petition, stating that any further action by the University due to overstaffing cannot be interfered with. The judgment concludes by dismissing the petition without costs and closing the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely legal action and the court's stance on the reassignment of surplus staff in educational institutions. It emphasizes that the petitioners cannot be prejudiced if their services are not terminated but rather reassigned, and they can seek redress if necessary. The court's decision underscores the discretion of the University in managing its staffing levels and the limitations of interference by the court in such administrative decisions. The judgment provides clarity on the legal standing regarding surplus staff management and the rights of employees in such situations, balancing administrative needs with individual rights.