Madras High Court
P.J.A.Alpones vs The Director on 12 September, 2006
Author: N.Paul Vasanthakumar
Bench: N.Paul Vasanthakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 12/09/2006 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P(MD)No.6167 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 P.J.A.Alpones ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli - 620 015. 2.The Co-Ordinator, Quality Improvement Programme, Continuing Education Programme, Indian Institution of Technology, Delhi, Hauzkhas, New Delhi - 110 -16. ... Respondents Prayer Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to grant permission and issue relieving order for joining M.Tech degree under quality improvement programme of AICTE, pursuant to the provisional selection letter in Ref.No.2006/QIP/MD/252, dated 2.5.2006, received from the 2nd respondent. !For Petitioner ... Mr.S. Packiaraj ^For 1st Respondent ... M/s.Raghu Associates For 2nd Respondent ... Mr.P.Subbaraj :ORDER
Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to grant permission and issue relieving order for joining M.Tech degree under Quality Improvement Programme of AICTE, pursuant to the provisional selection letter issued by the second respondent on 2.5.2006.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows.
(a) Petitioner passed M.Sc. (Mathematics), M.Phil (Mathematics), Ph.D. (Mathematics-Computer Science) and M.C.A. He joined in the first responent institute on 19.1.2000 and now working as Senior Lecturer in the department of Computer Applications.
(b) The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) announced admission for Quality Improvement Programme (QIP) for teaching staff of the Engineering Institutions in September, 2005. The premier institution for the said course of M.Tech is the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi, the second respondent herein.
(c) Petitioner submitted his application dated 7.10.2005 for joining M.Tech (Computer Applications), a two year fellowship programme, through the first respondent, wherein the petitioner is working. The first respondent approved the petitioner's application and sent the same to the Chairman and Principal QIP Co-Ordinator, Centre for Continuing Education, IIT, Madras, who is the receiving authority of applications on behalf of the second respondent.
Petitioner also obtained a certificate and forwarding note from the first respondent with an undertaking that he will be relieved full time for the programme on deputation and will be paid full salary and allowances during the tenure of his sponsorship, if selected for admission. According to the petitioner, without the said certificate, the application of the petitioner will not be entertained.
(d) The second respondent accepted the petitioner's application and the petitioner was provisionally selected for admission by letter of the second respondent dated 2.5.2006 and the petitioner had to register himself for hostel accommodation on or before 24.7.2006 and also required to report for orientation programme at 8.00 a.m. on 25.7.2006 and for central registration on 26.7.2006 at 9.00 a.m. in the second respondent Institute. It is also stated that on any unavoidable circumstance, if a candidate is unable to register on the scheduled date, the late registration with permission by paying late fee was upto 2.8.2006.
(e) On 11.5.2006, petitioner gave a letter to the first respondent requesting him to issue relieving certificate, enabling him to join in the M.Tech programme in IIT, New Delhi. Petitioner requested to relieve him two weeks before the date of joining by enclosing the selection letter dated 2.5.2006. The first respondent placed the matter before the 'Deans Committee' meeting and the same was approved along with one other request made by another person working in Architecture department, who was relieved in time. However, the relieving order was not issued to the petitioner and the same was delayed without passing any order. When the peitioner enquired about the same, he was informed that the same is under due process.
(f) Petitioner, having not been issued with relieving order and had to report on 24.7.2006, gave a reminder letter on 20.7.2006 to the first respondent and in spite of the same petitioner was not given relieving order. No valid reason is also stated for not issuing the relieving order.
(g) According to the petitioner, in the department in which the petitioner is working, the first respondent recruited three persons to the teaching faculty, two by way of promotion viz., Professors N.V.Gopalan and D.P.Ramadoss and the third one by name Miss.Janet, a fresh candidate. As such, the department is having manpower and by relieving the petitioner for two years, no prejudice will be caused.
(h) According to the petitioner, he did M.C.A. Degree through Distance Education Programme of Madurai Kamaraj University, as M.C.A. is one among the qualification for M.Tech QIP course offered by the AICTE through the second respondent. It is further stated that QIP is funded by the Central Government for the selected candidates to improve the teaching standard and the same is implemented by the AICTE, which is the monitor of the standard of Technical Education in India. Many faculty members of the petitioner department had done their M.Tech degree through QIP and among them there are many people who have done their Ph.D degree and MCA degree. In view of non-issuance of relieving order, petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the above prayer.
3. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the writ petitioner is a Senior Lecturer in the department of Computer Applications and the then Director had approved and forwarded the application of the writ petitioner dated 17.10.2005 to the Chairman and Principal, QIP Co-Ordinator, IIT, Madras, who is the receiving authority of such applications on behalf of the second respondent and at that time, petitioner's possession of Ph.D degree was not aware of to the first respondent. It is also stated that even though the application of the petitioner was approved and forwarded, as on today, due to unexpected changes in the circumstances, owing to the direction issued by the Government of India to increase the number of seats by 54 of the available seats in the Institute from the year, 2007, the Institute is very much in need of petitioner's service in the interest of students and Institution. It is also admitted that the petitioner has been provisionally selected for admission to M.Tech degree (Mathematics), but due to unavoidable circumstance, the Institute is not in a position to relieve him for full time for the programme on deputation with full salary and allowances. Insofar as the other candidate who has been relieved in time for the QIP programme, it is stated that he is working in Architecture department and she is only a under graduate and as far as the Architecture department is concerned, the Institute is not in a compelling necessity of that candidate to be retained. Therefore, due to the compelling necessity in the department the petitioner cannot be relieved. It is also stated that the petitioner is highly qualified with Doctorate of Philosophy in Mathematics-Computer Science (Inter-Disciplinary) and the claim of the petitioner to do M.Tech under QIP programme on deputation with full salary and allowances is unjust and self-serving in view of the increased workload in the Computer Application Department and in view of the proposal to increase the number of seats by 54% from 2007. It is further stated that the first respondent had started M.S.computer Science course from 2006-2007 and the petitioner can very well join in the said course and undertake M.S.Computer Science by research so that the interest of the petitioner, students and the Institute will be safeguarded.
4. A reply affidavit has been filed wherein the petitioner has denied the averments in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has delayed to inform about his Ph.D. Degree. Petitioner had passed Ph.D. Degree in February, 2004 and was promoted as Senior Grade Lecturer only on obtaining the said degree. At that time, petitioner produced the provisional degree certificate and thereafter only he was promoted as Senior Grade Lecturer on completion of four years experience as lecturer. In case of non-Ph.D degree holders, five years experience is required for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer. Therefore, it is falsehood on the part of the first respondent to contend that they are not aware of the pass of Ph.D. Degree by the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner was treated as Ph.D. Degree holder, granted promotion and paid salary from February, 2004 as Senior Grade Lecturer. Petitioner sent his application to the M.Tech degree to IIT, Delhi through the first respondent disclosing all his educational qualifications with proof. Therefore, only after knowing about the possession of Ph.D. Degree by the petitioner, his application was forwarded pursuant to which the second respondent selected the petitioner. Therefore according to the petitioner, relieving order is bound to be issued by the first respondent. Insofar as the contention that the petitioner's service is required for the Department, it is stated that the then Director, after analysing the workload of the department, granted approval and forwarded his application dated 17.7.2005 with the certificate of undertaking to relieve the petitioner if he is selected for admission to the M.Tech Course. Hence the first respondent is estopped from not relieving the petitioner after his selection. The contention of the first respondent that the petitioner is having Doctorate of Philosophy in Mathematics and Computer Science (Inter-discipline) and M.Tech degree is not required, is unsustainable since the topic of "On Distance Domination, related parameters and their applications" is basically related to mathematics and therefore it has no connection with computer science. The M.Tech degree course is exhaustive and in depth study in each and every discipline in advanced level and due to the said reason only petitioner opted to join in the second respondent Institute. It is also stated that one faculty member with Ph.D. Degree was allowed to join M.Tech through QIP and other schemes. It is also stated that MS Computer Science, which is going to be offered by the first respondent is much inferior in all respects than the M.Tech degree offered by the IIT, Delhi.
5. An additional counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent wherein it is admitted that petitioner's application was duly forwarded for selection and that he had passed Ph.D and was given promotion as Senior Lecturer and has been paid salary from February, 2004. It is also reiterated that the petitioner's qualification is more than sufficient and he need not undergo M.Tech degree course as petitioner's service is very much required for the first respondent Institution.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued on the basis of the averments and the reply affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also submitted that while admitting the writ petition on 24.7.2006, this Court passed interim order by directing the second respondent to keep one seat vacant in M.Tech degree (Computer applications) pursuant to the selection made by the second respondent through his order dated 2.5.2006 pending further orders and therefore there is vacancy available and the refusal to issue relieving order to the petitioner is totally unjust.
7. The learned counsel for the first respondent argued that merely because petitioner's application is forwarded and he was selected by the second respondent, he cannot claim the relieving order as a matter of right and it is the discretion of the first respondent to relieve or retain the petitioner in the interest of the institution. The learned counsel also cited the decision reported in (1995) 1 SCC 274 (Kasinka Trading and another v. Union of India and another) for the proposition that the petitioner cannot claim any promissory estoppel merely because he got selected. Learned counsel for the first respondent also produced the Information Brochure issued by the AICTE for Quality Improvement Programme and stated that the said programme is intended for providing opportunities to faculty members of the degree-level engineering institutions to improve their qualifications by offering admissions to Masters and Ph.D degree programmes and the main object of the programme is to upgrade the expertise and capabilities of the faculty members of the degree-level engineering institutions. Relying on the said object, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already got Ph.D degree and therefore there is no necessity to undergo M.Tech Computer Science programme.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents in the light of the pleadings of the respective parties.
9. The point in issue is whether the first respondent is justified in not relieving the petitioner for doing M.Tech Course after selection by the second respondent.
10. Petitioner applied for the M.Tech course only through the first respondent and the first respondent approved the petitioner's application and sent the same to the Chairman and Principal of QIP Co-Ordinator, Centre for Continuing Education, IIT, Madras, who is the receiving authority. While sending the petitioner's applciation, a certificate and forwarding note was also obtained from the Principal and Head of the Institution of the first respondent and sent along with it an undertaking that the petitioner will be relieved for the full time for the programme on deputation and with full salary and allowances during the tenure of petitioner's sponsorship if selected for admission. The said fact is not denied by the first respondent in the counter affidavit.
11. Petititioner has been selected by the second respondent and was directed to join the course on 26.7.2006, otherwise, with late fee before 2.8.2005. It is also the admitted fact that the petitioner had requested to relieve him on 11.5.2006, pursuant to his selection, by communication dated 2.5.2006. It is also a fact that the petitioner's application was not rejected by passing any order by the first respondent and the said request for relieving is kept pending till date.
12. When the writ petition was filed, this Court directed the second respondent to keep one seat vacant in favour of the petitioner as he was selected by order dated 2.5.2006. The contention of the first respondent that while forwarding the application of the petitioner, the first respondent was not aware of petitioner's possession of Ph.D. Degree is unsustainable in view of the fact that the petitioner passed Ph.D degree and applied for Senior Grade Lecturer and the same was granted to him considering possession of his Ph.D. Degree, even though he was having only four years of experience as lecturer and the petitioner was paid Senior Grade Lecturer salary from November, 2004. It is common knowledge that promotions will be given only after verifying the qualifications, eligibility and experience and salary will be sanctioned only after again verifying the qualifications, eligibility. Had the petitioner not possessed Ph.D. Degree, the first respondent could not have promoted the petitioner, as the petitioner was not having five years experience required for promotion. The said fact is also not disputed by the first respondent either in the counter or during arguments. Hence the said contention is rejected.
13. The other reason given by the first respondent in the counter affidavit that the strength will be increased from 2007 and therefore the petitioner should be retained in the department is also unreasonable because when the petitioner had applied, the said proposal of increasing the strength was not there and after completing the M.Tech course from the second respondent, petitioner is going to serve only with the first respondent and therefore his quality of performance will be improved and therefore the first respondent also will get benefit from the petitioner's higher qualification.
14. The decision cited by the first respondent that the petitioner cannot claim the relieving order applying the principle of promissory estoppel is not the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner nor in the grounds of attack.
15. The contention raised by the first respondent that the petitioner can very well undergo M.S.Computer Science course, commenced by the first respondent from 2006-2007 is also unsustainable because the first respondent cannot compel the petitioner to undergo the said course without the consent or willingness of the petitioner. Nowhere in the counter affidavit the first respondent has stated that M.Tech Degree course conducted by the second respondent is inferior than the M.S. Computer Science Course conducted by the first respondent. Hence the said contention is also without any reason. The petitioner submitted his application without suppressing any facts which was forwarded and certified by the first respondent, based on which the second respondent selected the petitioner and a seat is also kept vacant. Hence the action of the first respondent in not relieving the petitioner is unjust and the same cannot be approved.
16. For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is bound to succeed and a mandamus is issued directing the first respondent to relieve the petitioner enabling him to join in the second respondent Institute on or before 20.9.2006.
17. The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
vr To
1. The Director, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli - 620 015.
2. The Co-Ordinator, Quality Improvement Programme, Continuing Education Programme, Indian Institution of Technology, Hauzkhas, New Delhi - 110 -16.