Madras High Court
The Thanjai Tamil University vs / on 1 February, 2018
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.02.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD) No.2624 of 2008
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2008
1.The Thanjai Tamil University,
SC/ST Paniyalar Sangam,
represented by its President
Tanjore.
2.M.Murugesan,
23, Poonachi Illam,
Sivaji Nagar,
Second Street,
Thanajvur ? 613 001. ...
Petitioners
/vs/
1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Higher Education,
Fort St.George,
Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Vice Chancellor,
Tamil University,
Tanjore.
3.The Tamil University,
Tanjore, represented by its
Registrar,Tamil University,
Tanjore.
4.The University Grants Commission,
represented by its Secretary,
New Delhi ? 110 002.
5.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Tamil and Culture Development,
Fort St.George,
Chennai- 600 009.
6.Dr.K.Kandan,
Lecturer,
Department of Sculpture,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
7.Dr.Mrs.Madhavi,
Lecturer,
Department of Music,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
8.Dr.P.Govindasamy,
Lecturer,
Department of Drama,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
9. Dr.M.G.Kovaimani
Lecturer,
Department of Palm Leaf Script,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
10.Dr.C.Lakshmanan,
Lecturer,
Department of Rare Manuscripts,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
11.Dr.P.Jayakumar
Lecturer,
Department of Epigraphy,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
12.Dr.Mrs.Indu,
Lecturer,
Department of Underwater Archeology,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
13.Dr.S.Udayasuriyan
Lecturer,
Department of Foreign Studies,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
14.Mrs.S.M.Perumal
Lecturer,
Department of Translation,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
15.Dr.R.Thirunavukkarasu,
Lecturer,
Department of Lexigography,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
16.Dr.M.Parvathiyammal,
Lecturer,
Department of Lexigography,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
17.Dr.M.Mathialagan
Lecturer,
Department of Social Services,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
18.Dr.R.Kamala Thiagarajan,
Lecturer,
Department of Scientific Tamil and
Tamil Development,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
19.Dr.P.Ramalingam,
Lecturer,
Department of Tamil Literature,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
20.Dr.K.Thilagavathi,
Lecturer,
Department of Tamil Literature,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
21.Dr.K.Viswanathan,
Lecturer,
Department of Linguistics,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
22.Dr.S.Neelayathatchi,
Lecturer,
Department of Philosophy,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
23.Dr.A.Shanmugam Pillai,
Lecturer,
Department of Folk Lore,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
24.Dr.C.Sundaresan,
Lecturer,
Department of Folk Lore,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
25.Dr.R.Muralidharan,
Lecturer,
Department of Indian Languages,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
26.Dr.C.Savithiri,
Lecturer,
Department of Indian Languages,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
27.Dr.V.Elango,
Lecturer,
Department of Siddha Medicine,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
28.Dr.P.Duraisamy,
Lecturer,
Department of Physics,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
29.Mr.N.Nagarajan,
Lecturer,
Department of Ancient Science,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
30.Dr.Angusamy,
Lecturer,
Industries and Earth Science,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
31.Thiru.A.Mathialagan,
Lecturer in Greater Lexicon,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
32.Dr.G.Vasantha,
Lecturer in Greater Lexicon,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
33.Dr.C.Shema Sundari,
Lecturer in Greater Lexicon,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur.
34.Dr.T.Deiveegan,
Lecturer in Science Encyclopaedia,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of declaration declaring the G.O.Ms.No.246, dated
12.6.2007 of the fifth respondent and the appointment of the respondents 6 to
34 as Lecturers is illegal and consequently to direct the third
respondent/University to fill the 29 sanctioned Professor Posts and 39
sanctioned Readers posts by Direct Recruitment providing reservation for the
Scs in the Professor/Reader Cadre in the Departments where there are more
than one post of Professor/Reader and for award of costs.
!For Petitioner : M/s.S.Arunachalam
For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthu
1 and 5 Addl. Government Pleader
For Respondent-2 : Mr.R.Subramanian
For Respondent-3 : M/s.T.Sakthikumaran
For Respondent-4 : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan
For Respondents :Mr.Mahaboob Athiff
6 to 10 &R12&R13
to 29 and R31 to 34
For Respondent-11 :M/s.K.Thirumalsamy
For Respondent-30 :Given up
:ORDER
The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is for declaration declaring the G.O.Ms.No.246, dated 12.06.2007 of the fifth respondent and the appointment of the respondents 6 to 34 as Lecturers is illegal and consequently, to direct the third respondent/University to fill the 29 sanctioned Professor Posts and 39 sanctioned Readers posts by Direct Recruitment providing reservation for the Scs' in the Professor/Reader Cadre in the Departments where there are more than one post of Professor/Reader.
2.The first Writ Petitioner is the Thanjai Tamil University SC/ST Paniyalargal Sangam, represented by its President. The second Writ Petitioner is none other than the President of the very same first Petitioner/Sangam. The Second Writ Petitioner stated that he has filed the present Writ Petition both in the name of the first petitioner/Sangam as well as in his personal capacity. The very claim made out in this Writ Petition is that the absorption of some staff of the first Petitioner/ University as Lecturers is contrary to the rules in force. The said Government Order which is impugned, dated 12.06.2007 states that the Government has granted permission to the University to absorb the employees working as Research Assistants to the post of Lecturers. It is further stated that those employees working as Research Assistants possessing requisite qualification for the post of Lecturers are to be absorbed in the University in the existing vacancy.
3.The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners states that an Association is formed in order to protect the interest of the employees working in the first Petitioner/University, more specifically, the employees belonging to the SC/ST community. Further, it is stated that the respondents are initiating steps to violate the recruitment rules in respect of providing reservation to the SC/ST category employees. This apart, the learned counsel states that the administration of the University had already negotiated with the First Petitioner/Sangam and entered into an agreement and as per the agreement, they have to fill up the posts by following the recruitment rules in force. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners is of an opinion that the first Petitioner/University is not following the rules and regulations and filling up the post in contravention of the rules. The first Petitioner/Sangam has got a locus-standi to question the administrative actions of the University and the same cannot be disputed by the respondents. Under these circumstances, the first Petitioner/Sangam states that Government Order granting permission to the University to absorb the Research Assistants as Lecturers, are contrary to the rules in force.
4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University made a submission that in the meeting held on 23.12.2005 to consider the filling up of reserved vacancies, the second petitioner and other office bearers of first petitioner/Sangam agreed for re-designation of 23 Research Assistants as Lecturers or appointment as Lecturers, but after the issue of G.O.(D)No.246, dated 12.06.2007, the Petitioners have challenged the same. Hence the writ Petition is liable to be set aside on the principle of ''Estoppel''.The learned counsel for the respondent states that the decision in respect of absorbing the Research Assistants as Lecturers was taken in the Joint Council Meeting with the first Petitioner/Sangam by the University. That being the fact, the present Writ Petition cannot be filed and the first Petitioner/Sangam has estopped from challenging the Government Order in view of their participation in the Joint Council Meeting held by the University on 23.12.2005.
5.The learned counsel for the respondent further states that during the initial period of establishment of the University, the UGC has granted various research projects with permission to appoint the Senior Research Fellows and Junior Research Fellows on monthly consolidated Fellowship and hence, the Research Fellows were appointed between the period from 1985 to 1991 with the approval of the Syndicate of the respondent University, which is the competent authority to make appointments in the University as per the Tamil University Act and they were engaged for teaching, research and besides to guide the M.Phil and Ph.D Scholars and 19 Research Follows were brought under the regular time scale of pay from June and September as approved by the Syndicate of the University at its Meeting held on 23.05.1992, 22.08.1992 and 30.11.1992 and three Research Fellows were directly appointed in the Research projects through interview and selection in December 1992 and march 1996 as approved by the Syndicate at its Meeting held on 03.12.1992 and 25.03.1996.In para9(c) to (J) of the counter of the third respondent, it has been held as under:
9. As for the averment made in para-27 to 29 and issue of G.O.(D)No.246 Tamil Development, Endowment and Information (Tha.Va.2.1) Department, it is submitted that
(a)..........
(b)...........
(c) Besides the above Research Fellow, the following employees were appointed to attend academic works, with the approval of the Syndicate of the University,
(i) Three Word Collectors appointed on daily wage basis between 1985 and 1988 were brought under Consolidated pay as approved by the Syndicate on 23.06.1992,
(ii)One Technician was appointed on 12.07.1984 as approved by the Syndicate on 12.07.1984,
(iii)One Special Research Fellowship (Telugu Chair) was appointed on 03.04.1996, and
(iv)One Archives Assistant was appointed on 12.09.1997 as approved by the Syndicate on 12.09.1997.
(d)In the Syndicate Resolution dated 23.03.1991, it was approved to change the nomenclature of "Word Collector" etc as "Research Assistant".
(e)In the meeting held on 23.12.2005 to consider the filling up of reserved vacancies, the 2nd petitioner and other office-bearers of petitioner-sangam agreed for re-designation of 23 Research Assistants as Lecturers or appointment as lecturers.
(f) In consideration of the long service rendered by the above said Research Fellows and other in the academic and research activities of the respondent-University, the Syndicate at its meeting held on 24.02.2006 resolved to consider the Research Fellows, Word Collector, Technician, Special Research Fellow (Telugu Chair) and the Archives Assistant who have fulfilled the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Lecturer, to designate them as Lecturers through selection.
(g) The Syndicate at its meeting held on 26.05.2006 has resolved to amend the Statute in Chapter-XII and inserted Statute-6A for re-designation of the certain category employees, (who possess qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturers), as Lecturers, following the due process of selection by the Teaching Staff Selection Committee and with the approval of the Syndicate and accordingly, the proposal, dated 03.10.2006 was sent to the Govt. to amend to the above Statute.
(h)The 1st respondent passed G.O.(D)No.115, Tamil Development, Endowments and Information Department, dated 23.03.2007 to treat the above Research Fellows, Word Collector, Technician, Special Research Fellow (Telugu Chair) and the Archives Assistant as Academic/Teaching personnel.
(i) It is pertinent to state here that similarly placed academic personal were re-designated/appointed as Lecturer/Assistant Professor in other Universities as given below:
(i) University of Madras has re-designated the "Technical Officer"
appointed as per UGC Plan sanction and who involved in Research and Teaching, as Lecturer in the year 2006,
(ii) The Government of Tamil Nadu has passed G.O.Ms.No.21 Agriculture (AU) Department, dated 25.01.2007 to appoint 131 Teaching Assistants working on consolidated pay in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University as Assistant Professors in the regular time scale of pay from 01.06.2006 in the sanctioned vacant posts.
(iii) The Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi has approved the policy to give merit promotion to the "Academic non-teaching Research Assistant", in view of the "determination of the equivalence of their present posts with that of Lecturer",considering their qualification, research work and teaching experience.
(j) Considering the above policy and procedure followed in resect of other Universities and in pursuance of the selection of the above said Research Fellows, Word Collector, Technician, Special Research Fellow (Telugu Chair) and the Archives Assistant (who were treated as Academic/Teaching personnel as stated supra) to appoint as Lecturers, the respondent-University sent the proposal, dated 09.02.2017 to Government seeking orders to appoint them as Lecturers.
(k) After due consideration of the qualification, very long experience and contributions made to the University, the G.O.(D)No.246 Tamil Development, Endowments and Information Department, dated 12.06.2007 was issued, to appoint the qualified and experienced, 21 Research Assistants, 2 Junior Research Fellows, 1 Research Assistant(Telugu Chair), 3 Word Collectors, 1 Technician and 1 Achieves Assistant (Totally 29) as Lecturers relaxing the relevant Appointment Rules of the University. Hence, the proposal to make amendment to Statute to re-designate the above employees as Lecturer was ordered dropped. Thus,the appointment of Respondents - 6 to 34 as Lecturers is valid in law.
(l) Hence, the above 29 personals were appointed as Lecturers based on their qualification and in the respective departments, of which, two persons belong to S.C. community.
(m) According to the reservation policy, about 5 posts should be filled up in the above 29 personal by SC/ST but the available 2 persons of SC community was appointed and the remaining three posts required to be filled up by SC/ST candidates was filled up by making appointment to 11 posts of Assistant Professor by Special Recruitment Process in the year 2007 as resolved by the Syndicate in Sub No.2006:183 dated 30.11.2006. Thus, about 13 persons belong to SC/ST Community have been appointed as Assistant Professors, which is in excess by 11 posts in the cadre of Assistant Professor. Therefore, there is no backlog vacancy in the cadre of Assistant Professor.
6.Substantiating the various facts and circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the University strenuously contended that the University has acted in accordance with the provisions of the rules and by obtaining proper permission from the Government and the Government had also considered the administrative necessities and considering the various factors and by considering that the University being a research oriented University in Tamil, has granted permission.
7.Such being the fact, there is no reason for the Writ Petitioners to move this Writ Petition. If at all, if any individual employees is aggrieved, it is for the employees to move the writ petition and the Association cannot maintain the Writ Petition.
8.The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents by stating that the participation of the Sangam was a formal one and the decision taken is entirely different. Further, it is pleaded that the first Petitioner/Sangam is not a party to the Government order or the decision taken by the University. Further, the learned counsel for the Petitioners states that there is no material available to show that the first Petitioner/Sangam had participated in the Joint Council Meeting or was a party to the decision taken by the University. Thus, those statements made by the respondents are not binding on the first Petitioner/Sangam.
9.Be that as it may, this Court is of an opinion that appointment or re-designation or absorption is an administrative policy of the State Government or by an employer. Appointment, as it is, can never be claimed as a matter of right. Further, equal opportunity in public employment is a constitutional mandate. All citizens of this great nation shall be provided with an opportunity to participate in the process of selection for securing public employment. Rule of reservation is also a constitutional mandate. The State or Union are bound by the rules and reservations and there cannot be any compromise or violation in respect of implementing the rule of reservation. Further, it is made clear that while undertaking the process of selection or appointment or absorption, the employer has to scrupulously follow the rules in force. There cannot be any dilution or deviation in this regard. The complaint made in the Writ Petition is that the absorption of these Research Assistants as Lecturers created certain heart-burning issues amongst the members of the first petitioner/Sangam. Thus, they are constrained to move the present Writ Petition.
10.The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners mainly contends that the University had not created a post and without creating a post, they have absorbed the Research Assistants as Lecturers. However, these grievances in respect of absorption of Research Assistants as Lecturers were taken as an administrative policy, which cannot be questioned by the first Petitioner/Sangam.
11.The employees Sangam/association was constituted to protect the interest and welfare of the employees. The employees have got service rights and their service rights are to be protected within the ambit of the service conditions provided by the employer. The employees or its Sangam cannot have any locus-standi to question the administrative decision taken by the State or by the University. The administrative decisions are taken by the University or by the State by considering various aspects and the Sangam being represented by employees of the University certainly cannot question the administrative decisions. Certain administrative decisions in respect of appointment, re-designation, absorption are the policy decisions and if any service conditions are violated in respect of the members of the first Petitioner/Sangam, then it is for the respective aggrieved person to approach the Court in order to redress their grievances. Even in respect of protection of service conditions, all the grievances cannot be brought out by the first Petitioner/Sangam. If the grievances are relating to the individual benefit like promotion, appointments, scale of pay etc, then the affected person alone will be competent to file a Writ Petition. It is not as if every grievance of an employee can be brought before the Court of Law by the first Petitioner/Sangam, consisting of employees. In that case, there need not be any individual Writ Petition at all. All the Writ Petitions can be filed by the Sangam and that is not the scope of Article 226 of the constitution of India. Every aggrieved person has to be permitted to move a Writ Petition in this regard. It is to be verified that, whether the Sangam as a legal person, is aggrieved or not. In other words, if the collective rights are violated, then the sangam or association may be permitted to move the writ Petition. For instance, if the administrative decisions are taken affecting the service conditions as a whole, then the sangam will be the competent person to challenge such administrative orders. However, even in those circumstances, the Courts are bound to examine, whether such grievance are in connection with the individual employee or it is of the Sangam itself.
12.Under these circumstances, the Sangam or Association should be treated as a legal person and if the rights of such legal person is violated, then Writ Petition can be entertained. It is not as if all the grievances of the employees be brought before this Court by way of Writ Petition by a Sangam or Association.
13.Under these circumstances, a perusal of the Government order impugned in this Writ Petition issued in G.O.Ms.No.246, dated 12.06.2007, it is the Government granted permission to absorb these Research Assistants as Lecturers. Further, it is clarified that all the persons absorbed as Lecturers are fully qualified in accordance with the UGC regulations. The learned counsel for the University also clarified that the rules relating to the minimum educational qualifications were followed at the time of appointing these Research Assistants.Thus, it is made clear that the University while undertaking the process of selection for any post in the University, they are bound to follow the recruitment rules including the rule of reservation which is a constitutional mandate and there cannot be any deviation in this regard. This Court expect that no such deviation or violation would take place.
14.With these observations,the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Fort St.George, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Vice Chancellor, Tamil University, Tanjore.
3.The Tamil University, Tanjore, represented by its Registrar,Tamil University, Tanjore.
4.The University Grants Commission, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi ? 110 002.
5.The Secretary to Government, Department of Tamil and Culture Development, Fort St.George, Chennai- 600 009.
.