Madras High Court
Dr.A.T.Ravichandran vs The Director Of Collegiate Education on 19 June, 2024
W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023 &
W.M.P.(MD)No.15975 of 2023
Dr.A.T.Ravichandran ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Director of Collegiate Education,
EVK Sampath Maligai,
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Trichy Region, Trichy District.
3.The Registrar,
Bharathidasan University,
Trichy, Trichy District.
4.The Secretary,
National College,
Trichy, Trichy District.
5.Dr.K.Kumar ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the selection of the fifth
respondent as Principal of the fourth respondent College, pursuant to the
Notification / Circular issued by the fourth respondent in Circular
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023
R.C.No.192/2022-2023 dated 19.12.2022 as illegal and consequentially
direct the fourth respondent to appoint the petitioner as the Principal in
the fourth respondent College.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjadkhan
Government Advocate for R1 & R2
Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan for R3
Mr.R.Sidharthan for R4
Mr.J.Anandkumar for R5
ORDER
Heard Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.T.Amjadkhan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, Mr.R.Sidharthan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and Mr.J.Anandkumar, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the selection of the fifth respondent as Principal 2/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023 of the fourth respondent College pursuant to the Notification / Circular issued by the fourth respondent in Circular R.C.No.192/2022-2023 dated 19.12.2022 as illegal and consequentially direct the fourth respondent to appoint him as the Principal in the fourth respondent College.
3. The petitioner, the fifth respondent and Dr.T.V.Sundar were the three persons who have been short listed for the purpose of selection to the post of Principal of the fourth respondent College. As per the eligibility criteria in UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018, the candidate who competes to the post of College Principal has to comply the following requirements.
"College Principal and Professor (Professor's Grade) A. Eligibility:
(i) Ph.D.degree
(ii) Professor / Associate Professor with a total service / experience of at least fifteen years of teaching / research in Universities, Colleges and other institutions of higher education.
(iii) A minimum of 10 research publications in peer-reviewed 3/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023 or UGC-listed journals.
(iv) A minimum of 110 research score as per Appendix II, Table 2."
4. So far as the qualification of holding Ph.D.degree and putting in minimum experience in the post of Professor / Associate Professor etc., there cannot be any quarrel and it will be very easy to find out from the Educational Certificates and Service Records of the individuals whether they have fulfilled the eligibility criteria contemplated above. Even the third requirement in respect of minimum of 10 research publications in peer-viewed or UGC-listed journals can also be easily assessed when the candidate could produce the list of papers published by him as prescribed under the said Rules. Now comes the fourth criteria, which would contemplate a minimum of 110 research score as per Appendix II, Table
2. The overall performance of a candidate under Table 2 is collectively called as Academic Performance Indicator ( in short “API”). For the sake of clarity, Table 2 is extracted hereunder.
4/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023 5/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023
5. There is no quarrel on the point that both the petitioner and the fifth respondent had got the minimum eligibility of 110 research score as per Table 2 in view of their contribution as required in the Table. In fact, as per the records, the petitioner has got 878 points and the fifth 6/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023 respondent has got 730 points against the various indicators shown in the above Table. There is no quarrel between the petitioner and the fifth respondent on this aspect as well. Though the petitioner has got higher API than the fifth respondent, at the end of the selection process, the fifth respondent happened to get selected to the post of Principal. Hence, the petitioner has questioned the very selection process by stating that the very selection process is itself illegal.
6. However, Mr.R.Siddharthan, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the selection process does not end with the calculation of API as shown in Table 2. But, the Selection Committee has to asses the ability of the candidates in accordance with the selection criteria. It is claimed by him that the Table 2 scores should be considered only for the limited purpose of knowing whether the person concerned has got the minimum threshold eligibility to participate in the selection process to the post of Principal.
7/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023
7. The selection procedure is contemplated in 6.0 of UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018. The selection procedure would state how to asses the merit of a candidate and how to assess the ability of a candidate. It also states that the overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on the weightage given to their performance as against the relevant parameters on a grading system. For a better clarity, the above regulation is extracted hereunder.
"6.0 SELECTION PROCEDURE:
I. The overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on the weightage given to the performance of the candidate in different relevant parameters and his/her performance on a grading system proforma, based on Appendix 11, Tables 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, and 5 In order to make the system more credible, universities may 8/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023 assess the ability for teaching and/or research aptitude through a seminar or lecture in a classroom situation or discussion on the capacity to use the latest technology in teaching and research at the interview stage, These procedures can be followed for both the direct recruitment and the CAS promotions, wherever selection committees are prescribed in these Regulations.
II. The universities shall adopt these Regulations for selection committees and selection procedure through their respective statutory bodies incorporating Appendix II, Table 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, and 5 at the institutional level for University Departments and their Constituent colleges affiliated colleges (Government/Government- aided/Autonomous Private Colleges) to be followed transparently in all the selection processes. The universities may devise their own self- assessment-cum-performance appraisal forms for teachers in strict adherence to the Appendix II, Table 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, and 5 specified in these Regulations."
8. So, in short, the merit of a person is being assessed by working out the points scored by him against the various parameters prescribed in the various. The ability of the candidate will be assessed as 9/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023 per the procedure contemplated under second paragraph of 6.0 (I) extracted above. As regards the ability, the Universities have to asses the same through a seminar or lecture in a classroom situation and discussion on the capacity to use the latest technology in teaching and research at the interview stage. So, the above requirement would state that the ability can be assessed at the interview stage also along with the assessment of the performance of the candidate while he was holding a seminar or lecture in a classroom situation or other type of ability as stated in the Rule.
9. As far as the Selection Committee that has to be constituted for selection of College Principal and Professor, the requirement would contemplate the following combinations of persons in the Selection Committee.
"VIII. College Principal and Professor A. Selection Committee
(a) The Selection Committee for the post of College Principal and Professor shall have the following composition:10/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023
i) Chairperson of the Governing Body to be the Chairperson.
ii) Two members of the Governing Body of the college to be nominated by the Chairperson of whom one shall be an expert in academic administration.
iii) Two nominees of the Vice-Chancellor who shall be Higher Education experts in the subject/field concerned out of which at least one shall be a person not connected in any manner with the affiliating University. In case of Colleges notified/declared as minority educational institutions, one nominee of the Chairperson of the College from out of a panel of five names, preferably from minority communities, recommended by the Vice-Chancellor of the affiliating university of whom one should be a subject expert.
iv) Three Higher Education experts consisting of the Principal of a College, a Professor and an accomplished educationist not below the rank of a Professor (to be nominated by the Governing Body of the college out of a panel of six experts approved by the relevant statutory body of the university concerned).
v) An academician representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority/ Women/Differently-abled categories, if any of candidates representing these categories is the applicant, to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, if any of the above members of the selection committee does not belong to that category.11/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023
vi) Two subject-experts not connected with the college to be nominated by the Chairperson of the governing body of the college out of a panel of five names recommended by the Vice Chancellor from the list of subject experts approved by the relevant statutory body of the university concerned. In case of colleges notified/declared as minority educational institutions, two subject experts not connected with the University nominated by the Chairperson of the College governing body out of the panel of five names, preferably from minority communities, recommended by the Vice Chancellor from the list of subject experts approved by the relevant statutory body.
(b) Five members, including two experts, shall constitute the quorum.
(c) All the selection procedures of the selection committee shall be completed on the day/last day of the selection committee meeting itself, wherein, minutes are recorded along with the scoring Proforma and recommendation made on the basis of merit with the list of selected and waitlisted candidates/Panel of names in order of merit, duly signed by all members of the selection committee.
(d) The term of appointment of the College Principal shall be five years, with eligibility for reappointment for one more term only after an assessment by a Committee appointed by the 12/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023 University as per the composition given in sub-clause (B) of 5.1 (VIII)
(e) After the completion of his/her terms as Principal, the incumbent shall join back his/her parent organisation with the designation as Professor and in the grade of the Professor."
10. There is no doubt as regards the composition of the Selection Committee in accordance with the above requirement. The Selection Committee has assessed the ability of the person by holding interview. In the instant case, the Selection Committee has proceeded to asses the ability of a candidate by assessing the following criteria. For better appreciation, the Table adopted by the Selection Committee is reproduced as under.
S.N Name of Academi Research Assessment of Interview Total
o the c and Domain Performanc Marks
Candidat Backgrou Academic Knowledge and e (Merit Secured
e nd Contributi Teaching Skills and (Max:100)
(20) on (20) Ability)
(40) (20)
13/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023
11. It seems that there were nine Selection Committee members. The total marks allotted for the interview was 100 and the interview board comprised all of the nine Selection Committee members. As per their report dated 12.05.2023 in respect of the interview performance of three short listed candidates, inclusive of the petitioner and the fifth respondent, the fifth respondent has scored 81 marks, the petitioner has scored 63 marks and the other candidate by name Dr.T.V.Sundar had scored 58 marks. However, 100 marks allotted for the interview has been converted to 20 marks and the over all selection was made by assessing other qualifications like academic background, research and academic contribution, assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills and interview performance (merit and ability) and following marks have been allotted against each category.
(i) Academic Background - 20 (ii) Research and Academic Contribution - 40
(iii) Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills- 20
(iv) Interview Performance (Merit and Ability) - 20 14/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023
12. Despite interview is only to asses the ability of a person and the merit has to be worked out only in accordance with the Table showing API, the Selection Committee members proceeded to assess the candidates' merit and ability also through interview performance. This would only show that the Selection Committee has also assessed the merit of a person while they were assessing their ability during interview. The above exercise is unnecessary because, so far as, merit is concerned, a candidate's merit has to be tested on the basis of the various points allotted to the candidate in accordance with the Appendix II Table 2 and the said exercise has already been done. Knowing the same, the Selection Committee members have once again evaluated the merit through the process of interview.
13. Besides the merit and ability, the Selection Committee members have assessed other areas like academic background, research and academic contribution and assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills. In fact, the above three components are the fundamental aspects which can be known through the Appendix II Table 2 indicators. 15/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023 Having got the score of individual persons and other merits calculated through points awarded under different elements seen in the Appendix II Table 2, the Selection Committee has once again ventured to give marks to academic background, research and academic contribution and assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills.
14. Even if it is assumed that for the sake of completion, the Selection Committee needed the above parameters to be taken into account to give an ultimate result of the selection, the marks awarded as against each candidate should be reflecting the total points secured by each candidate as against the parameters set by the Selection Committee. But for the reasons best known to the Selection Committee, every committee member has given higher marks to the fifth respondent for academic background and lesser mark to the petitioner. Eight members of the Committee have each given higher marks for fifth respondent for research and academic contribution and only one committee member has given 22 marks to the fifth respondent and 24 marks to the petitioner for the same category.
16/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023
15. In the column of assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills, all the Selection Committee members have awarded fifth respondent either marks higher than or equal to the marks given to the petitioner as a general feature. If API are relevant to asses the academic background, research and academic contribution and assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills of the candidates, then the candidates who have secured higher marks in the API would have got higher marks in the assessment of the Selection Committee as well under the broader categories of academic background, research and academic contribution and assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills.
16. So far as the interview performance, it may be in the best appreciation of the Committee members who have adopted their own ways and means to asses the ability of the candidates. As stated already by conducting interview, the Selection Committee had assessed the merit of the candidates also which is purely contrary to the selection procedure itself. There is no dispute that all these indicators are taken together and the total marks obtained by a candidate would be the deciding factor for 17/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023 selecting a candidate to the post of Principal. So, it cannot be claimed by the fourth respondent that the assessment of API is only a threshold eligibility and that the performance in the interview alone matters. Had it been the case, every academician who is working in the Colleges will restrict his API by getting a minimum score of 110 points, that means, the faculty will not venture to publish more papers or to undertake more research activities, other academic activities equivalent to a total score of 110 points. Since, different points have been given in the Table 2 for the different parameters of the academic excellence, it cannot be simply stated that the course obtained by the individuals under various categories fixed under Table 2 is only for knowing their threshold eligibility and not more than that. As the selection process is done by adding up both the academic merit element along with the ability assessed during the interview, the total marks of a person who had better academic merit and who had better edge in terms of points secured by him would have been a better candidate for selection.
18/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023
17. Mr.J.Anandkumar, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that since the post of Principal requires the ability of administration as well, it is not sufficient for a candidate to have excellence in the academic area alone and he has to demonstrate his administrative ability as well.
18. Though it might be true, the Selection Committee did not reserve any points to asses the administrative ability of the candidate as it is seen from the process through which they had assessed the ability of the candidates. Even if it is accepted that the fifth respondent had performed excellently well in the interview and the petitioner had given a performance below than the fifth respondent, when the marks in the interview is totalled along with the other criteria namely the merit, that would only place the petitioner in a better position in terms of total marks and not the fifth respondent.
19. In fact, there is no much difference between the petitioner and the fifth respondent in the marks allotted to them in the interview 19/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023 also. Out of 100 marks reserved in the interview the petitioner had obtained 63 marks and the fifth respondent had obtained 81 marks. When the above marks for 100 is converted to 20 marks, the petitioner would have 12.6 marks and the fifth respondent would have 16.2 marks. But, these figures did not appear in any of the assessments of the Selection Committee members in the columns reserved by them for the interview performance. That would only show that the Selection process has not been carried out by scrupulously following the procedures and properly appreciating the merit and ability of the candidates appeared before the Selection Committee for the post of Principal.
20. Since the lacunae pointed out in the selection process will render the whole selection process itself is vitiated, there is no difficulty to declare that the above selection process itself is illegal.
21. Since the petitioner has proved to have better merit and ability, the fourth respondent College, without any hesitation has to issue the appointment order to the petitioner to the post of Principal with effect 20/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023 from the date on which the order has been given to the fifth respondent by reverting the fifth respondent to his original position.
22. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of and the fourth respondent College is directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner to the post of Principal by giving notional effect with effect from the date on which the appointment to the post of Principal was earlier given to the fifth respondent by reverting the fifth respondent to his original position and grant monetary benefits from the date on which the petitioner assumes charge as the Principal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19.06.2024 NCC: Yes Index : Yes Speaking order mbi 21/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023 To
1.The Director of Collegiate Education, EVK Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Trichy Region, Trichy District.
3.The Registrar, Bharathidasan University, Trichy, Trichy District.
22/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023 R.N.MANJULA, J.
mbi W.P.(MD)No.19279 of 2023 19.06.2024 23/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis