Chennai: Madras high court on Friday proposed to hold the state director of collegiate education guilty of contempt of court for hindering the appointment of lecturers to 132 vacant posts in colleges run by Pachaiyappa’s Trust, despite a court order.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy directed the personal appearance of the officer on June 2 to explain why she should not be acted against for wilful disobedience of the court order.

“Unfortunately, and audaciously, the secretary of higher education, the commissioner of collegiate education, and the DVAC are bent upon the fact that the trust election should be first conducted and trustees alone should fill up the vacancies,” the judge said. The court then forwarded the order to the chief justice to decide on placing it before an appropriate division bench to consider action for criminal contempt against the authorities.
The court passed the order on a contempt of court petition moved by Pachaiyappa’s Trust Board, alleging disobedience of an order dated April 24, 2024, permitting the trust — administered by a former judge of the court — to fill the vacancies.
When the plea came up for hearing, the department informed the court that approval for the appointments was rejected as the reservation roster was not correctly followed regarding 34 candidates.
Further, in the status report filed by the department, it was submitted that an inquiry is being conducted by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC). Opposing the same, the trust submitted that when the entire selection is conducted according to the rules, by a court-appointed administrator who is part of the selection committee, such an allegation would, by itself, amount to contempt.
Recording the submissions, the court said that when a division bench of the court has given a go-ahead for the appointments, it cannot be stalled indirectly. Thus, the exercise of power, in as much as it rejects the entire 126 proposals, clearly points towards wilful disobedience of the order of this court, the judge said.
Noting that it will be open for the director of collegiate education to come up with any revised order, the court directed the authority to show such cause as to how her conduct does not amount to wilful disobedience.