The Madras High Court has stayed for six weeks the Tamil Nadu Government’s order temporarily promoting Dr. Gowri Ramesh to the post of Director of Legal Studies at Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University. Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar passed the interim order on October 1, 2026, while hearing a challenge brought by Dr. Rajeswaran, Principal of Government Law College, Vellore.
The Court observed that the government’s decision appeared, at first glance, inconsistent with an assurance previously given before a Division Bench regarding the appointment process.
Background
Dr. Rajeswaran challenged Government Order G.O. (Ms.) No. 246, dated September 8, 2026, under which Dr. Gowri Ramesh was temporarily promoted to the post under Section 47(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.
This was the second time Rajeswaran had approached the High Court over the appointment. In an earlier petition, the Court had considered Dr. Gowri Ramesh’s arrangement as the officer holding full additional charge of the post.
On July 23, 2026, a Division Bench allowed the State’s appeal after the Advocate General assured the Court that the post would be filled by appointing a full-time Director in accordance with Rule 2(a) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service within two months.
Rajeswaran argued that the subsequent government order relied on the statutory provision for temporary promotion rather than the prescribed recruitment rules.
The State defended the order, submitting that the temporary promotion was consistent with the earlier assurance and that the appointee had already assumed charge. The Advocate General also argued that an interim stay at this stage could amount to granting final relief before the petition was decided.
The Court, however, found that the government order expressly invoked Section 47(1), which provides for temporary promotion in specified circumstances, and did not indicate that the promotion had been made under Rule 2(a).
The judge observed:
“The assurance or statements made by learned Advocate General before this Court are binding on the state. Once an assurance was given before this Court as noted above, the respondent State ought to have taken all necessary steps to fill up the post of Director of Legal Studies strictly in accordance with Rules 2(a) of the Special Rules.”
The Court further noted that the impugned order prima facie appeared inconsistent with the assurance recorded by the Division Bench. It said that allowing the State to act in disregard of the earlier judicial order could erode public confidence in the judicial system.
Finding the matter appropriate for interim protection, Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar stayed the operation of the impugned order for six weeks.
The High Court directed that the matter be listed on November 2, 2026, for the filing of counter-affidavits by the respondents.
