Madras High Court
L.Padmaja vs The University Grants Commission on 30 June, 2014
Author: K.B.K.Vasuki
Bench: K.B.K.Vasuki
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2014
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI
Writ Petition No.32711 of 2003
L.Padmaja ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The University Grants Commission
represented by its Chairman,
Bahadur Sha Zaffar Marg,
New Delhi-2.
2.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
3.The Director of Collegiate Education,
College Road, Chennai-6.
4.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Tirunelveli Region,
Tirunelveli.
5.The Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar
University, Abishekapatti,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
6.The Correspondent,
Nesamoney Memorial Christian College,
Marthandam and Post,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent issued in his letter No.F1/16/2000(PS)/Pt.file dated 2.11.2002 and the consequential order dated 16.7.2003, quash the same and direct the first respondent to grant relaxation in favour of the petitioner for not having passed the State Level Eligibility Test/ National Level Eligibility Test and consequently direct the third respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in the department of Physics in the 6th respondent college with salary and other benefits from 21.8.2000 in the FIP vacancy and from 20.6.2001 in the permanent vacancy with salary and other benefits.
For Petitioner : Mrs.P.Mahalakshmi
For Respondents : M/s.P.R.Gopinathan for R1
Mr.R.M.Muthukumar -R2 to R4
Mr.V.Govardhanan for
M/s.Row and Reddy -R5
No appearance -R6
O R D E R
The writ petition is filed for quashing the order of the first respondent, with consequential direction to grant relaxation in favour of the petitioner for not having passed the State Level Eligibility Test/ National Level Eligibility Test and direction to the third respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in the department of Physics in the 6th respondent college, with salary and other benefits from 21.8.2000 in the FIP vacancy and from 20.6.2001 in the permanent vacancy with salary and other benefits.
2.The facts made available herein would reveal that the petitioner was between 1985 and 1988, appointed as Lecturer in Physics at Muslim Arts College, Azhagiyamandapam in the self finance post. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the 6th respondent College in the vacancy arose, due to various reasons, such as, Earned Leave Vacancy, Study Leave Vacancy, Maternity Leave vacancy. She was again appointed in the permanent vacancy arose due to retirement on 20.6.2001 onwards. At the time of her appointment, the qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer by UGC was PG with NET/SLET. As the petitioner did not possess NET/SLET qualification, the 6th respondent Management requested the fifth respondent University to send the proposal for grant exemption from NET/SLET qualification by the first respondent and for approving the appointment of the petitioner and accordingly, representation was also made to the first respondent in this regard. The first respondent under the impugned order dated 2.11.2002, rejected the request on the ground that the college has not followed proper selection procedure for making appointment of the petitioner. The 6th respondent management again made a detailed representation dated 5.5.2003 to the first respondent, stating that all the established norms and procedures were followed, while appointing the petitioner in the FIP (Faculty Improvement Programme) leave vacancy. The same was followed by the second impugned order dated 16.7.2003, in and under which, the first respondent UGC reiterated its earlier order dated 2.11.2002 and rejected the proposal for relaxation. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition for the relief as stated supra.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, in this writ petition, challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned orders on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in Physics was, as per the Rules of the Diocese and the 6th respondent College being Christian Religious Minority Aided College has followed its own procedure for selection and appointment of Lecturers and the selection was made by the Governing Board of the College, who is the competent authority to make selection. It is also contended herein that the first respondent having the power of exemption, failed to duly exercise the same and failed to give any justifiable reason for rejecting the request for exemption. It is further argued on the side of the petitioner that the first respondent, having granted exemption from NET/SLET qualification, to several other candidates, is not justified in rejecting the exemption sought for by the petitioner and the same is in violation of the Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
4.On the contrary, the learned counsel for the first respondent, by reiterating the same stand taken in the counter, contended that the post of Lecturer was not duly advertised and the appointment of the petitioner against FIP vacancy is without the University approval. It is also stated in para 19 of the counter that those who completed their M.Phil on or before 31.12.1993 or submitted Ph.D thesis on or before 31.12.2002, are exempted from NET/SLET and the petitioner has completed M.Phil in the year 1997, as such, the University has not granted approval to the petitioner and accordingly, UGC could not release the substitute salary.
5.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides.
6.The facts that the petitioner was appointed in the vacancy arose on different reasons and she was appointed against permanent vacancy on 20.6.2001 and she does not possess NET/SLET qualification, are not denied. The sixth respondent management being minority college, has prescribed their own procedure for making appointment. It is their specific case that the petitioner's appointment was made in accordance with such procedure by governing Board which is the competent authority. As the petitioner was appointed without NET/SLET qualification, the sixth respondent management has duly applied for relaxation of the same to the first respondent UGC who is empowered to grant relaxation in the prescribed qualification.
7.As per the UGC Regulations, the ground on which the relaxation to be granted is that in a particular subject in which NET is not conducted or enough number of candidates are not available with NET qualification for a specified period only and any relaxation if allowed, would be given based on sound justification and would apply to affected Universities for that particular subject for the specified period and no individual application would be entertained. The particulars made available in the UGC Regulations would reveal that the provision contained in the UGC notification dated 24.12.1998 mentioning that it would be optional for the University to exempt Ph.D degree holders from NET or to require NET in their case, as a desirable or essential qualification for appointment as Lecturer, has been withdrawn by UGC Regulation of the year 2000.
8.That being so, the petitioner was granted exemption from the University concerned, before withdrawal of the said provision and on the strength of such exemption, she was also sanctioned UGC pay scale. The 6th respondent management has, in their representation dated 1.7.2002, explained the circumstances under which the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in FIP vacancy, as per the Rules of the Diocese. However, the first respondent by the impugned orders simply rejected it by stating that the sixth respondent college has not followed proper selection procedure for making her appointment. Further, the impugned orders are silent with regard to the manner in which the selection procedure was violated in the matter of appointment of the petitioner. While it is reiterated by the Sixth respondent management that it followed the Rules of the Diocese and its own procedure for appointment, the impugned orders do not explain the manner in which it was violated. It is sought to be explained only in the counter that the post was not duly advertised and the appointment was made without the approval of the University. The first respondent has not produced any rules or regulations, wherein, such procedure is prescribed for the post of lecturer. The impugned orders do not disclose that the same were passed on sound justification by duly taking into consideration the points raised in the 6th respondent's requisition dated 1.7.2002. Such failure on the part of the first respondent rendered the impugned orders to be arbitrary, biased and unfounded. Though the power to grant exemption includes the power to reject the requisition for exemption, the same shall be founded on sound justification and proper reasoning. In the absence of one such reasoning, the impugned orders passed by the first respondent cannot be allowed to sustain and the same are liable to be quashed.
9.In the result, the impugned orders passed by the first respondent stand quashed, with direction issued to the first respondent to consider the claim made by the sixth respondent College in their representation dated 1.7.2002 through fifth respondent and to grant exemption to the petitioner in respect of UGC condition of clearing NET/SLET in view of the grounds stated in their representation and also in the light of the observations made by this Court and consequently approve the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Physics with effect from 20.6.2001, with salary and other benefits. The whole exercise shall be completed within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly ordered. No costs.
rk 30-6-2014 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To 1.The University Grants Commission represented by its Chairman, Bahadur Sha Zaffar Marg, New Delhi-2. 2.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 3.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-6. 4.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli. 5.The Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. K.B.K.VASUKI, J. rk Writ Petition No.32711 of 2003 30.6.2014