Madras High Court
T.Manohara Justus vs The Chancellor Of Universities on 1 February, 2019
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 30.07.2018
Pronounced on : 01.02.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD).Nos.15071 and 16165 of 2018
and WMP (MD).Nos.13649 and 14396 of 2018
W.P.No.15071 of 2018
T.Manohara Justus ... Petitioner in
W.P.(MD).No.15071 of 2018
A.Srinivasan ... Petitioner in
W.P.(MD).No.16165 of 2018
Vs
1. The Chancellor of Universities
Raj Bhavan,
Guindy,
Chennai - 600 022.
2. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
3. University Grants Commission
Rep. by its Chairman,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110 002.
4. Manonmaniam Sundaranar University
Rep. by its Registrar,
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Tirunelveli - 627 012.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
5. Mr.T.Kannan
Convenor - Search Committee (MSU)
Chairman,
Thiagarajar College of Engineering,
Madurai - 625 009.
6. Mr.M.Ahmed Khan
Member-Search Committee (MSU),
39-8, Allen Street, Court Road,
Nagercoil - 1,
Kanyakumari District.
7. Mr.M.Nagarajan
Member-Search Committee (MSU),
51, II Street, Vasantham Colony,
Maharaja Nagar,
Tirunelveli - 11.
8. Dr.K.Krishnan Baskar
Vice Chancellor,
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Tirunelveli - 627 012. ... Respondents in both the
writ petitions
Prayer in W.P.No.15071 of 2018 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Quo Warranto to
show cause under what authority the 8th Respondent continues to
hold the office of the Vice Chancellor, Manonmaniam Sundaranar
University and call the concerned records and quash the same as
ultravires.
Prayer in W.P.No.16165 of 2018 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Quo Warranto to
show cause under what authority the 8th Respondent continues to
hold the office of the Vice Chancellor, Manonmaniam Sundaranar
University and call the concerned records and quash the same as
ultravires.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy in W.P.No.15071/2018
Mr.T.Arul in W.P.No.16165 of 2018
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
For Respondents : Mr.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R4
Mr.N.Dilip Kumar for R6
Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu for R7
Mr.G.Prabu Rajadurai for R8
COMMON ORDER
Both these writ petitions have been filed seeking for a writ of Quo warranto to show cause under what authority the 8th respondent continues to hold the office of the Vice Chancellor, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University and call for the concerned records and quash the same.
2. Since both these writ petitions were filed for the very same prayer, these two writ petitions at the admission stage were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Since both the writ petitions were filed for same or similar prayer, the facts narrated in the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.15071 of 2018, herein after called as "first writ petition", is suffice to take note of, for the disposal of these two writ petitions. Accordingly, the facts of the first writ petition is given infra.
4. The first writ petition has been filed by one T.Manohara Justus and he claimed to be one of the senate members of the fourth http://www.judis.nic.in 4 respondent University. He further claims that, he had completed 34 years of teaching in Nesamony Memorial Christian College, Marthandam and retired from service as an Associate Professor of Mathematics in 2016 and he was holding the post of Syndicate Member during the year 1994-1997.
5. The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University (for brevity "The University") has been established by a State Legislation called Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act, 1990. The Governor of the State of Tamil Nadu is the Ex-officio Chancellor of the University, who shall appoint the Chief Executive of the University called "Vice Chancellor". The method of appointment for the post of Vice Chancellor, according to Section 11 of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act (for brevity "The Act") is that, a search committee would be constituted consisting of 3 members, out of whom one shall be a nominee of the Government, one shall be the nominee of the Syndicate and one shall be the nominee of the Senate of the University. Accordingly the search committee consisting of 5th, 6th and 7th respondent was constituted, where the 5th respondent was the Convenor and other two, i.e., the respondents 6 and 7 are members. According to the petitioner of the first writ petition, the search committee issued a notification on 18.09.2015, whereby advertisement was issued calling application from the willing http://www.judis.nic.in 5 candidates to submit their Bio Data to the search committee members for the post of Vice Chancellor. The last date for submission of Bio Data was also fixed as 10.12.2015. It is the case of the petitioner in the first writ petition that, the 8th respondent did not submit any application for the post of Vice Chancellor of the University to the members of the search committee till the last date fixed by the committee in this regard.
6. In this context, it is the further stand and allegation of the writ petitioner in the first writ petition that, the search committee conducted few sittings, scrutinized applications and short-listed more than 10 candidates as per the notification. On the last sitting, the Convenor of the search committee brought an application of the Respondent No.8, which was claimed to be recommended by the then Chief Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is further alleged by the petitioner that, the Convenor insisted that, the application of the 8th respondent should be considered since the application was routed through the Chief Secretary of the State as per the direction of the higher authorities. It is further alleged that, because of the compelling reasons 8th respondent's name was included in the panel of three candidates.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
7. It is further alleged by the writ petitioner that, the other two persons, whose name also found in the panel of name sent by the search committee were having higher qualification than the 8th respondent and in this regard, it is the allegation of the petitioner that, the 8th respondent did not possess the necessary qualification of 10 years experience as a Professor, which is an essential qualification under the University Grants Commission Regulations 2010. It is alleged further that, despite the said fact that, the 8th respondent did not even make an application to the search committee members before last date prescribed for the said purpose and also without having the necessary / essential qualification to hold the post of Vice Chancellor of the University, the Chancellor has appointed the 8th respondent as Vice Chancellor of the University and therefore, the 8th respondent holding the post of Vice Chancellor of the University is hereby questioned. Accordingly the petitioner sought for a writ of Quo warranto against the 8th respondent.
8. In so far as W.P.(MD).No.16165 of 2018 is concerned, this was also filed exactly for the similar prayer of the first writ petition and this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, one A.Srinivasan, who claimed to be a retired Professor and Head of Department of Grammar, School of Tamil studies at Madurai Kamaraj University, as he retired from that capacity from June 2007. He further claimed that, http://www.judis.nic.in 7 he was holding the post of Additional Controller of Examinations in charge in the Directorate of Distance Education at Madurai Kamaraj University during his service and he was formerly member of the Syndicate of the Madurai Kamaraj University.
9. The petitioner in the said writ petition, who is called as "second writ petitioner", has further claimed in the affidavit filed in support of his writ petition that, the retired employees of the Madurai Kamaraj University (in brevity "MKU") along with social workers and stake holders of higher education, has formed a forum in the name of "Save MKU Coalition". He further claimed that, when he opposed the selection of the erstwhile Vice Chancellor one Kalyani Mathivanan of MKU and when the said position was flashed in the media in May 2014, he was attacked by hooligans. Regarding the same, an FIR was registered before Nagamalai Police Station and in the said FIR, Dr.P.P.Chelladurai, who was subsequently appointed as Vice Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University was shown as one of the accused.
10. With these background of facts, the petitioner in the second writ petition, inter alia made almost a similar allegation as has been stated in the first writ petition. Accordingly, on the very same two grounds, i.e., (1) the 8th respondent did not have the http://www.judis.nic.in 8 qualification to hold the post of Vice Chancellor and (2) the 8th respondent without even making an application to the search committee, had been considered by the search committee and whose name had been recommended and ultimately he was appointed as Vice Chancellor of the University, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer of writ of Quo warranto questioning the 8th respondent as to under what authority he was holding the post of Vice Chancellor of the University.
11. When the first writ petition came up for hearing, it was urged by Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in the first writ petition that, if the two grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition since are very serious in nature, notice to the respondents especially to the 8th respondent to be sent by this Court questioning him or asking him to show cause under what authority he was holding the post of the Vice Chancellor of the University.
12. In elaboration of the arguments, learned counsel would submit that, the University Grants Commission is the Apex body and whatever law (Regulations) made by the University Grants Commission under its Regulation making power vest with them under the University Grants Commission Act, those regulations are binding on the State and Central Universities of this country and in this regard, http://www.judis.nic.in 9 he would very much rely upon the University Grants Commission Regulations 2010 (in short UGC Regulations).
13. By relying upon the said regulations, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the selection of Vice Chancellor should be through a proper identification of panel of 3 to 5 names by a search committee through a public notification or nomination. He would further submit that, the search committee while preparing the panel of 3 to 5 names must give proper weightage to academic excellence, exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad and adequate experience in academic and administrative Governance.
14. The learned counsel would further extend his arguments by stating that, in respect of the State and Central Universities, the constitution of the search committee, shall be in the following manner, namely, one nominee of the visitor or Chancellor who shall be the Chairperson of the committee, a nominee of the Chairman, University Grants Commission, a nominee of the Syndicate / Executive Council / Board of Management of the University. He would further submit that, according to the UGC Regulations, the Visitor / Chancellor of the University concerned in the case of Central or State University as the case may be, shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the search committee.
http://www.judis.nic.in 10
15. By relying upon these Statutory position emanated from the UGC Act and the regulations made thereunder, the learned counsel would further submit that, the UGC Regulations has also indicated or mandated the essential qualification of an academician to hold the post of Vice Chancellor of the University.
16. In this context, the learned counsel has relied upon Regulation 7.3.0 under the caption "Vice Chancellor", which reads thus:
"7.3.0 VICE CHANCELLOR :
Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors. The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years of experience as professor in a University system or ten years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and / or academic administrative organization."
17. Since it is a minimum qualification of 10 years of experience as a Professor in a University system or 10 years of experience in a equivalent position in a reputed research or academic http://www.judis.nic.in 11 organisation, to hold the post of Vice Chancellor, no academician sans this minimum eligible qualification shall be recommended by any search committee nor shall be considered by the Chancellor / Appointing authority for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor of any State University.
18. The learned counsel by relying upon the aforesaid Regulations of the UGC would further submit that, the 8th respondent did not have the qualification of 10 years experience as Professor, therefore he ought not to have been recommended by the search committee for the post of Vice Chancellor of the University and he should not have been appointed as such by the Chancellor of the University.
19. The learned counsel, on the second ground urged by the writ petitioner, has made the submission that, apart from the infirmity of less qualification or inadequate qualification on the part of the 8th respondent, having regard to the procedure adopted by the search committee in conducting and concluding the process of finalising the three names of panel for recommending the same or giving the same to the Chancellor for appointment of the Vice Chancellor, the search committee especially the Convenor of the search committee, i.e., the 5th respondent has not acted upon, as per the established procedure http://www.judis.nic.in 12 and he in fact, in utter violation of the established procedure, had inserted the name of the 8th respondent at the last minute without even getting any application within proper time from him and accordingly, made the other two members, i.e., respondents 6 and 7 to sign the final recommendatory proceedings consisting the panel of three members including the name of the 8th respondent and handed over to the Chancellor for his consideration.
20. Therefore the learned counsel urged mainly on these two grounds as set out above, the 8th respondent's appointment as Vice Chancellor and his continuation as Vice Chancellor at the University is to be questioned, hence, notice for issuance of Quo warranto has to be issued against the 8th respondent.
21. Since almost similar averments and allegations have been made by the petitioner in the second writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the second writ petitioner also adopted the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel appeared for the first writ petitioner.
22. When the aforesaid first case came up for hearing, at the admission stage, Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior counsel has taken notice on behalf of the fourth respondent, i.e., the University. At this http://www.judis.nic.in 13 juncture, this Court thought of directing the learned Senior counsel appearing for the fourth respondent to get the stand of the 8th respondent, who is the Vice Chancellor of the 4th respondent University and to file an affidavit to that effect, since some allegations have been made against him by the writ petitioners.
23. Similarly the learned respective counsel appeared for 6th and 7th respondent, who are the members of the search committee, in fact wanted to file affidavit of the respective respondents, i.e., R6 and R7 giving their stand with regard to the averments and allegations made in the writ petitions.
24. Accordingly this Court directed 6th, 7th and 8th respondents to file affidavits. Thereafter when the case came up for hearing further, the 6th respondent filed an affidavit, dated 16.07.2018, the 7th respondent filed a counter affidavit, dated 19.07.2018 and the 8th respondent filed an affidavit, dated 24.07.2018.
25. The 8th respondent, who is the Vice Chancellor, whose position has now been questioned in these writ petitions, in his affidavit, has stated the following :
"2. I respectfully state that, being fully qualified http://www.judis.nic.in 14 to be appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the University, I had applied for consideration of my candidature to the search committee in the first week of October 2015. My application was very much within time, as the last date for submission of application was 12.10.2015. Therefore, I categorically deny the averment of the writ petitioner and the 7th respondent, that I had not submitted any application within time prescribed. In fact, I had submitted my application in accordance with the then existing norms, well within time. I also deny the averment that my name was forwarded to the search committee through the erstwhile Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu. In fact, I have never met the said officer till date not do I know him personally.
3. I respectfully state that, I have had a sterling record as an academician for about 24 years in the reputed Anna University, Crystal Growth Centre (UGC National Facility). I have been regarded as an accomplished academician in the field of education and research with seven years of overseas experience in reputed International University / Higher Educational Institutions in Japan and Sweden. I have about 150 research publications in reputed International Journals to my credit and I have supervised 18 full time Ph.D students with scholarship. I have been awarded with various http://www.judis.nic.in International awards and academic distinctions 15 and had established over 59 international MoUs with Anna University for bilateral academic cooperations. I have presented research papers in International conferences, seminars, established bilateral academic research cooperations and visited about 25 countries. I had brought in a competitive research grant of about Rs.11 Crores from the Government of India and the State of Tamil Nadu and I had been awarded an Active Researcher Award by the Anna University in recognition of research of International standard par excellence. I have also been offered invitations to head various institutions of higher learning abroad, however I had always wished to serve and develop institution of higher learning in our Country. I have maintained my record without any blemish post my appointment and all allegations leveled by the petitioner and the 7th respondent in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is actuated by Malice and is an afterthought only to malign my reputation and that of the University.
4. I respectfully state that, the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University despite being a state run University, which was not in a position to be eligible for National Institute Ranking Framework (NIRF) ranking in 2016, today is in the elite category of institutional ranking holding an outstanding National Institute http://www.judis.nic.in Ranking Framework (NIRF) ranking. The 16 University had seen tremendous development during my tenure and I have been able to set right various ills plaguing the University during the past and have enhanced the standard of education by enforcing academic discipline, which had upset a section of Teachers Association from affiliated colleges who had been evading academic duties as a dutiful teacher. The same is the reason behind the belated awakening of the petitioner and the present writ petition. I reserve my right to file a detailed counter affidavit, if the situation warrants the same in future."
26. The 6th respondent in his affidavit has stated the following :
"3. I respectfully state that, in respect of the averments made in paragraphs 3 to 5, it is submitted that the search committee of which I am a part of, had selected and recommended the candidature of 8th respondent to the office of the Vice Chancellor of the University on being fully satisfied, that he and other candidates recommended possess the requisite qualification as specified in the notification issued calling for applications and having regard to the provisions of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act and Statutes made thereunder. Other details in http://www.judis.nic.in 17 paragraph 3 to 5 are not within my exclusive knowledge.
4. I respectfully state that, as per section 11 of the Act of 1990, the Vice Chancellor is to be appointed by the 1st respondent, Chancellor from the 3 names, short listed by the search committee. The said provisions also contemplate that the committee shall comprise of 3 members which include one member to be nominated by the Government and one member each to be nominated by the Syndicate and the Senate. In view of the said provision, I was nominated as the nominee of the Syndicate, while the 5th and 7th respondents were nominated by the Government and Senate respectively. We had invited applications from all eligible candidates and in furtherance thereof, we had short listed the candidature of 3 candidates one of which is the 8th respondent. The said selection was undertaken by us strictly following the statutes of the University which provide for the procedure to be followed in this regard and the said short listing was done independently and fairly without any fear or favour.
5. I respectfully state that, in respect of the allegation in paragraph 12 to 17, it is categorically denied as false. In fact, the 8th respondent had submitted his application http://www.judis.nic.in within time and his application was considered 18 and deliberated by all three of us. The averment, that the application of the 8th respondent was forced on us through the 5th respondent being at the instance of the then Chief Secretary of Government of Tamil Nadu Sri Ram Mohana Rao is a product of wild imagination. We were not forced to recommend the 8th respondent along with other candidates, but we had short listed the 3 candidates including the 8th respondent after due deliberations and on being satisfied as to the institutional interest and qualification of the recommended candidates. Further it is to be noted that all the three candidates are mutually agreed to by us and all three members had jointly affixed our signature in the panel of names recommended to the 1st respondent. The uncharitable allegations leveled against other members particularly the 5th respondent, as through he had forced us to recommend the name of the 8th respondent is incorrect and is without any basis."
27. However the 7th respondent, who is also one of the search committee member in his counter affidavit among other things has made the following averments.
"4. I Submit that I am presently the General Secretary of MUTA - Madurai Kamaraj http://www.judis.nic.in Manonmaniam Sundaranar Mother Teresa & 19 Alagappa University Teachers Association. I am working as Associate Professor in Physics at V.O.C.College, Tuticorin with a teaching experience of 26 years. I served as Syndicate Member of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University previously and I was elected as the Senate Nominee to the Search Committee in the year 2015.
...
6. I submit that the Search Committee after the first meeting held at Thiagaraja College of Engineering during the month of September 2015 has issued a notification 18.09.2015 inviting application from candidates to be submitted on or before 12.10.2015. In view of the notification, we have received more than 90 applications. The Application of the respondent No.8 was neither submitted before the last date of submission of application, i.e., on 12.10.2015, nor submitted later on.
7. Subsequently on 23.10.2015, I along with two other Search Committee Members have perused the 90 applications submitted by the candidates in the 2nd meeting of the Search Committee at Thiagarajar Mills, Kappalur, Madurai. In the second meeting, I went with a Master Table drawn by me showing the qualification and other details of the candidates. On the second meeting on 23.10.2015, all of the three search committee http://www.judis.nic.in members has perused the details of the 90 20 applications drawn by me in the form of master table showing the qualification and other details and there was no deliberation or discussion regarding the selection in the 2nd meeting. Even during the second meeting the application of the respondent No.8 was not received.
...
11. I further submit that in the last meeting held in the month of February 2016, the Convenor informed me and the other search committee member that the Respondent No.8 is the candidate of his choice and also insisted me to include the name of the Respondent No. 8 in the list of three names to be recommended to the Respondent No.1. That I have informed the Convenor that the Respondent No.8 has not even submitted his application within the last date and I am not willing to recommend his name. The Convenor in response told me that if the name of the Respondent No.8 is not recommended, then all other names recommended to the Respondent No.1 will be rejected as the Respondent No.8 was recommended by the erstwhile Chief Secretary of the Government. Initially I explained that I was not willing to recommend the name of the Respondent No.8 who has not even submitted his application within the last date. But no option was given http://www.judis.nic.in to me to select the candidate and no kind of 21 deliberation or discussion was made in the last meeting as well. I was forced to shortlist the three names including the name of the Respondent No.8, I was also informed that the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University will function without Vice Chancellor for further period, If I record my dissent regarding the shortlisting of three names in which the Respondent No.8 was included. Therefore in the interest of the affairs of the University, without there being any option, I have affixed my signature in the Recommendation of panel of three names. In fact the Respondent No.6 has recommended the name of Dr.P.P.Chelladurai alone and the said candidate was recommended neither by the Convenor nor by me. The affixation of signature was only a convenient arrangement since the Convenor felt the name of the Respondent No.8 should be included though he never applied since he has the backing of the Government."
28. The aforesaid averments made in the affidavit / counter affidavit filed respectively by 6, 7 and 8th respondents were perused by this Court.
29. The first ground urged by the petitioners was that, the http://www.judis.nic.in 22 8th respondent did not possess the required qualification to hold the post of Vice Chancellor. To meet the said allegation, the 8th respondent himself has given detail about his qualification in his affidavit, which has already been extracted herein above. That apart, a copy of the Bio Data of the 8th respondent also has been filed in the typed set of papers, where his qualification has been shown as, he is M.Sc., B.Ed., Ph.D., He was having the experience of Lecturer / Assistant Professor for 9 years, Associate Professor for 8 years and Professor for 7 years. His Research publication in accredited journals was 90 and Articles in other journals and books were 19 and he guided so far 13 Ph.D., holders, who had already been awarded Doctorate and presently he is the guide for 9 Ph.D., Research scholars. Apart from that, he claimed so many awards and recognition in his cap and he claimed to be the life member of various International Academic Bodies. He at the time of considering for the post of Vice Chancellor was working as Director of Crystal Growth Centre, Anna University and he had been in the University Grants Commission Review Committee as its member for several times and he was member of Advisory committee of the 18th International Conference on Crystal Growth and Expitaxy at Japan in the year 2016. With these qualifications and distinctions, the 8th respondent claimed that, he was not only having the essential and necessary qualification to hold the post of Vice Chancellor but also was having higher distinctions in the chosen field http://www.judis.nic.in 23 and in fact he had claimed that, he was enjoying the International repute in his academic field and had visited so far 25 countries in connection with International Conferences, Seminars and other academic activities. He did 4 years of Post Doctoral studies at Nayoga Institute of Technology and Electrotechnical Laboratory, Tsukuba, Japan and also he worked three years as a visiting Researcher at Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden between 2001 and 2003.
30. In this context, it is to be noted that, the search committee in its advertisement calling Bio Data / Applications, has given the following, as criteria / qualification :
"Criteria / qualifications :
Persons, below the age of 67 years, who held / are holding the post of Professor / Associate Professor / Reader in a College or a University with a minimum of 10 years of total experience."
A corrigendum to the said advertisement also has been given by the search committee, where the following criteria / qualification had been mentioned :
"Persons, below the age of 70 years, who held / are holding the post of Professor / Associate Professor / Reader in a College or a University with a minimum of 10 years of total experience."
http://www.judis.nic.in 24
31. It is further to be noted that, the Government subsequently issued a G.O.in G.O.(Ms).No.187, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 14.07.2017, where 12 notifications issued in respect of the 12 Universities in the State of Tamil Nadu had been published. In this regard the following notification is related to the University (Manomaniam Sundaranar University) "[G.O.Ms.No.187, Higher Education (K-2), 14th July 2017, Mdp 30. ncwtpsk;gp. jpUts;Sth;
Mz;L-2048] No.II(2)/HE/562(c-7)/2017:-
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(ii) of sub-section (2-A) of Section 11 of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act, 1990 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1990), the Government of Tamil Nadu in consultation with the Chancellor of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, hereby specified that every person recommended by the Committee, referred to in sub-section (2) of the said section 11, for appointment as Vice-Chancellor shall possess the following educational qualifications and experience, namely : -
1. A Ph.D., Degree in any discipline;
2. Not less than twenty years of experience in teaching and research in universities or post graduate colleges or publicly funded research http://www.judis.nic.in institutions or in all taken together;25
or Not less than ten years of experience as Professor in a University system;
3. Not less than six years of administrative experience in universities or post graduate colleges or publicly funded research institutions in positions such as Dean, Head of the Department or any other such administrative positions of equal or higher degree of responsibility or in all taken together;
4. Must have published not less than five research papers in University Grants Commission listed journals after acquiring Ph.D., or authored not less than two books (non edited books) if adequate number of such University Grants Commission listed journals are not available; and
5. Must have presented not less than two papers in international level academic or research events and possess experience of having conducted not less than one such academic or research event. "
32. It is further to be noted that, in the matter of Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.N.Jeyaraj reported in (2015) 6 SCC 363, the Supreme Court considered a similar issue as to the qualification of an academician to hold the post of Vice Chancellor of State University and in that case, the appointment of one Kalyani Mathivanan as Vice http://www.judis.nic.in 26 Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University was questioned, where though a Division Bench of this Court had set aside the said appointment, reversing the said decision, the Supreme Court has ultimately held in this Judgment that, the UGC Regulations 2010, being passed by both the Houses of Parliament, though a subordinate Legislation, has binding effect on the Universities to which it applies.
Since the State of Tamil Nadu has not adopted those regulations in respect of the State Universities in Tamil Nadu, the said regulations of 2010 of UGC cannot be made applicable as a mandatory requirement, but it can be treated only as directory. For easy reference, the relevant paragraph of the decision of Kalyani Mathivanan is extracted hereunder :
"62. In view of the discussion as made above, we hold :
62.1. To the extent the State legislation is in conflict with the Central legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Central legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List shall be repugnant to the Central legislation and would be inoperative.
62.2. The UGC Regulations being passed by both the House of Parliament, though a subordinate legislation has binding effect on the universities to which it applied.
62.3. The UGC Regulations 2010 are http://www.judis.nic.in mandatory to teachers and other academic 27 staff in all the Central Universities and colleges thereunder and the institutions deemed to be universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by UGC.
62.4. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions under the purview of the State legislation as the matter has been left to the State Government to adopt and implement the Scheme. Thus, the UGC Regulations, 2010 are partly mandatory and is partly directory.
62.5. The UGC Regulations, 2010 having not been adopted by the State of Tamil Nadu, the question of conflict between the State legislation and the Statutes framed under the Central legislation does not arise. Once they are adopted by the State Government, the State legislation to be amended appropriately. In such case also there shall be no conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation.
63. In view of the reasons and finding as recorded above, we uphold the appointment of Dr.Kalyani Mathivanan as Vice-Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University as made by G.O. (1D) No.80, Higher Education (H2) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 9-4-2012 and set aside the impugned common judgment and order dated 26-6-2014 passed http://www.judis.nic.in by the Division Bench of the Madras High 28 Court, Madurai Bench in K.V.Jeyaraj v.
Chancellor of Universities, (2014) 4 CTC 257. The appeals are allowed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
33. In this context, all the qualifications notified by the search committee viz-a-viz, the legal position, clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalyani Mathivanan's case and subsequent notification issued by the State Government in G.O.(Ms.).No.187, dated 14.07.2017 are considered from where the position would emerge is that, the qualification to hold the post of Vice Chancellor of a State University in Tamil Nadu can be, as per the prescription made by the State through its legislative competency or rule making power, unless the UGC Regulations to that effect is adopted by the State for each of the State University.
34. In this context it is to be further noted that, the 8th respondent, since is having academic qualification as Assistant Professor for 9 years and Associate Professor for 8 years and Professor for 7 years, certainly he was having the necessary qualification to hold the post of Vice Chancellor and therefore the first ground alleged by the petitioners against the 8th respondent assailing his appointment as http://www.judis.nic.in Vice Chancellor of the University shall not hold any water and 29 therefore the said ground urged by the petitioners is unsustainable.
35. In so far as the second ground urged by the petitioners is concerned, it was alleged that the search committee had not adopted the procedure in deliberating, discussing, deciding and finalising the panel of three candidates to be submitted to the Chancellor, for consideration of appointment of Vice Chancellor to the University.
36. In this context, the 8th respondent himself in his affidavit has made it categorically clear that, he did submit the application in the first week of October 2015 and his application was very much in time, as the last date of submission of application is 12.10.2015. The 6th respondent, who is one of the search committee member, in his affidavit has categorically stated at para No.5, that, the 8th respondent had submitted his application within time and his application was considered and deliberated by all the three of us. He has further stated in the affidavit that, the averments that, the application of the 8th respondent was forced on us through the 5th respondent at the instance of the then Chief Secretary of Government of Tamil Nadu Sri Ram Mohana Rao is a product of wild imagination. He has further stated in the affidavit that, all the three candidates are mutually agreed to by us and all three members had jointly affixed our signature in the panel of names recommended to the first respondent. http://www.judis.nic.in 30
37. However, in contra to the said stand taken by the 6th respondent, the 7th respondent in his counter affidavit has stated that, in spite of three meetings held, till last minute, no application was filed by the 8th respondent and the Convenor had called the 7th respondent over phone and informed that he received one more application through mail from the erstwhile Chief Secretary of the State and he further informed that, he would forward the Bio Data of the said applicant. He has further stated in his affidavit that, in the last meeting held in the month of February 2016, the Convenor informed him and the other search committee member that, Respondent No.8 was the candidate of his choice and he also insisted him to include the Respondent No.8 in the list of three names to be recommended to the Chancellor.
38. Even though this has been stated in the counter affidavit of the 7th respondent, till writ petitions were filed, the 7th respondent had not shown any finger against any one and has not raised anything against any one.
39. However at para 12 of the counter affidavit, he has sated the following :
http://www.judis.nic.in 31 "12. I also submit that though I thought of appealing against the decision of the Search Committee to the Respondent No.1 and other higher authorities, I was advised not to appeal against the same by my well wishers as the Respondent No.8 is a highly influential person and was recommended by the Erstwhile Chief Secretary of the Government. My family was also under the fear that if I disclose the fact that the decision of the search committee was not unanimous and was without any deliberation or discussion, I will be put to serious hardships since I am working as Associate Professor at V.O.C College, Tuticorin.
Therefore I was silent and I did not appeal against the same.
13. Under these circumstances, nearly after a period of 2 years and 5 months, the writ petitioner herein has filed this writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.15071 of 2018. After knowing about the pendency of the writ petition, believing in the rule of law, I am filing this counter affidavit explaining the entire scenario behind the search committee meetings."
40. If the aforesaid reasons cited at para Nos.12 and 13 of the counter affidavit of the 7th respondent is genuine, the very same reason still persist, as the very same 8th respondent still continues to http://www.judis.nic.inbe the Vice Chancellor of the University. 32
41. In this context, it is further to be noted that, the minutes of the 4th meeting of the search committee held on 03.02.2016 at 3 p.m in Madurai, which in fact was the last meeting, where the three names panel were finalized, reads thus :
"Minutes of the 4th Meeting of the Search Committee of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University held on 3rd February, 2016 at 3.00 p.m, in Madurai. Present :
1. Mr.T.Kannan Convenor of the Search Committee
2. Advocate Mr.M.Ahmed Khan Nagercoil, Syndicate Nominee
3. Mr.M.Nagarajan Associate Professor, V.O.C. College, Senate Nominee The applications received were further considered and the Committee unanimously decides to submit the following panel of 3 names (alphabetical order) for the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University to the Chancellor, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University :
1. Dr.K.Baskar (Anna Univ, Chennai)
2. Dr.P.P.Chellathurai (Retired Prof. MKU)
3. Dr.V.Krishnakumar (Dean, Periyar Univ) Convenor of the Search Committee"
http://www.judis.nic.in 33
42. The aforesaid minutes makes it abundantly clear that, there is no iota of any dissent from any member including the 7th respondent herein, who is the third member of the search committee.
43. The wordings, "the applications received were further considered and the committee unanimously decides to submit the following panel of three names (Alphabetical order) for the post of Vice Chancellor", makes it very clear that, the decision to finalise the three names of the panel by the search committee was unanimous.
44. If at all the 7th respondent had any grievance as against any candidate including the 8th respondent, he would have very well registered his protest and at least his dissent could have been recorded in the minutes.
45. Since the 7th respondent was chosen one of the search committee member with whom an important task of selecting the panel of three academicians for the post of appointment of Vice Chancellor was given, such member of the search committee must be in a position to raise whatever issue crop up during the discussion and deliberation of the search committee meeting and if at all any candidates name is brought in at the last moment or inserted at the http://www.judis.nic.in 34 behest of any person whoever he may be, as claimed by the 7th respondent, such move on the part of any member of the search committee including the Convenor, could have been resisted by the 7th respondent.
46. Suppose if the 7th respondent felt that, he being the minority, as the Convenor and other member did not raise anything or they were in favour of the 8th respondent to include his name in the panel, at least the dissent could have been recorded in the minute.
47. Still assuming that, the 7th respondent was not able to have recorded his dissent in the minute, as he was not permitted by the Convenor and other member to do so, he could have simply walked out from the meeting and registered his protest through various other forum.
48. In this context, a Division Bench Judgment of this Court almost in a similar circumstances, in the matter of M.Lionel Antony Raj v. Dr.P.P.Chelladurai and others in W.P.(MD).No.12788 of 2017, dated 14.06.2018 can very well be relied upon. In fact, this Judgment has been very much relied upon by the petitioner's side in both the writ petitions.
http://www.judis.nic.in 35
49. In the Lionel Antony Raj's case, there was a search committee in respect of Madurai Kamaraj University, where one of the search committee member one Dr.Mu.Ramaswamy resigned holding that the functioning of the Convenor was high handed, therefore the Committee was re-constituted. Even in the re-constituted committee, two members of the search committee who did not agree with the inclusion of one name in the panel, i.e., Dr.P.P.Chelladurai, had subsequently came forward before this Court to file an affidavit and that was taken into account by this Court in the said Judgment.
50. Here in the case in hand, the 6th respondent being one of the search committee member has filed an affidavit stating that 8th respondent did file application, which was received in time, that was also included along with the applications and had been considered and due discussion and deliberation went on and ultimately by unanimous decision, three member panel of academicians were made and recommended to the Chancellor by the Search Committee.
51. In this context, it is further to be noted that, the petitioner in the first writ petition being an Associate Professor of a College affiliated to the University, had filed a writ petition against the University in W.P.(MD).No.10727 of 2018, where he questioned the order passed by the University, dated 26.04.2018, which reads thus :
http://www.judis.nic.in 36 "Dr.S.Santhosh Baboo Registrar.
Sub : Deletion of names from Registered Graduates - Intimation Reg.
* * ** It is hereby informed that your name enrolled as a Registered Graduate for a period of five years from 2013-2017 is expired and it has been deleted, since your application for renewal of registration is not reached before the due date for the renewal of registration under Clause 8(e) & (f) of the Statutes of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University.
Registrar."
52. In this context, in fact the learned Senior counsel appearing for the fourth respondent University and the learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent would submit that, allegations had been made against the 8th respondent by the writ petitioner in the first writ petition stating that, the 8th respondent was instrumental for issuing order against the said writ petitioner and others to delete the name of the writ petitioner and others from the roll of Registered Graduates, as the 5 years terms for which they made subscription expired in 2017 and subsequent renewal had not been made. http://www.judis.nic.in 37
53. This context has been mentioned by the learned counsels stating that, only because of animosity and rivalry between the first writ petitioner and the 8th respondent, at the belated stage, this writ petition has been filed.
54. Why the 7th respondent was silent for all these time as the selection was over by February 2016 itself, no plausible reason was given by him and the reason given by him in his counter affidavit cannot be countenanced. In this context, the finding and observation given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a similar circumstances in S.Chandramohan Nair v. George Joseph reported in (2010) 12 SCC 687 can be usefully referred to. In para 20 of the said decision, their Lordship's have said the following :
"20. That apart, be that as it may, we are convinced that the name of the appellant had been recommended by entire body of the Selection Committee, i.e., the Chairman and the members. If this was not so, either of the two members would have, after coming to know of the minutes recorded by the Chairman, lodged a protest or sent communication to the State Government that they had not recommended the name of the http://www.judis.nic.in appellant and that the minutes recorded by the 38 Chairman did not reflect the actual recommendations. However, the fact of the matter is that neither of them lodged any objection nor sent any communication to the State Government. Therefore, the contrary observations made by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.968 of 2007 cannot but be termed as erroneous and the same could not have been relied upon for quashing the appointment of the appellant."
55. Moreover issuance of writ of Quo warranto is a complete discretion of the Court of law. This has been emphasised and reiterated by the Apex Court in number of cases and one such case is (2009) 7 SCC 1, in the matter of N.Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose. The relevant portion of the said Judgment in this context is extracted hereunder :
"134. Indisputably a writ of Quo Warranto can be issued inter alia when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules as has been held by this Court in High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat, [(2003) 4 SCC 712](supra) and R.K. Jain v. Union of India and, [ (1993) 4 SCC 119 ]. (See also Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Govt. of Haryana. [(2002) 6 SCC 269]. In Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others v. Jitendra Kumar http://www.judis.nic.in Mishra and Others [(1998) 7 SCC 273], this 39 Court has stated that it is not for the court to embark upon an investigation of its own to ascertain the qualifications of the person concerned. [See also Arun Kr. Singh v. State of Bihar (2006) 9 SCC 375]. We may furthermore notice that while examining if a person holds a public office under valid authority or not, the court is not concerned with technical grounds of delay or motive behind the challenge, since it is necessary to prevent continuance of usurpation of office or perpetuation of an illegality. [See Kashinath G. Jalmi (Dr.) v. Speaker [(1993) 2 SCC 703].
135. Issuance of a writ of quo warranto is a discretionary remedy. Authority of a person to hold a high public office can be questioned inter alia in the event an appointment is violative of any statutory provisions. There concededly exists a distinction in regard to issuance of a writ of quo warranto and issuance of a writ of certiorari. The scope and ambit of these two writs are different and distinct. Whereas a writ of quo warranto can be issued on a limited ground, the considerations for issuance of a writ of certiorari are wholly different."
56. Therefore the law is settled in this aspects, within which the facts of the case is fit in. Prima facie the petitioners have not http://www.judis.nic.in satisfied this Court on either of the two grounds urged by them 40 assailing the appointment of the 8th respondent as Vice Chancellor and holding the said post at the University.
57. Moreover the allegation that, the search committee had not acted in proper manner, has been completely negated by one of the search committee member who has filed detailed affidavit in this regard. Therefore if the affidavit filed by the 6th respondent as well as the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent are put in juxtaposition and are evaluated, assuming that, both are oath against oath, the circumstances and the supporting evidences in the given context would make it abundantly clear that, the 8th respondent had given application to the search committee, which was discussed and deliberated by the committee and unanimous recommendation has been made as per the minute recorded in the 4th and final meeting of the search committee, dated 03.02.2016.
58. Since the 8th respondent was having the required and in fact more qualification than required to hold the post of Vice Chancellor and there is no evidence to suggest that, the search committee has not acted properly in recommending the name of the 8th respondent, this Court has no hesitation to hold that, the petitioners have not made out any case to issue notice questioning the 8th respondent as to under what authority he was holding the post of the Vice Chancellor of the 4th respondent University. http://www.judis.nic.in 41 For all these reasons, both the writ petitions fail as they deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed. No costs.
01.02.2019 Index : Yes Speaking Order tsvn To
1. The Chancellor of Universities Raj Bhavan, Guindy, Chennai - 600 022.
2. The Principal Secretary State of Tamil Nadu Department of Higher Education, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Chairman University Grants Commission Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002.
4. The Registrar Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli - 627 012.
5. Mr.T.Kannan Convenor - Search Committee (MSU) Chairman, Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai - 625 009.
6. Mr.M.Ahmed Khan Member-Search Committee (MSU), 39-8, Allen Street, Court Road, Nagercoil - 1, Kanyakumari District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 42
7. Mr.M.Nagarajan Member-Search Committee (MSU), 51, II Street, Vasantham Colony, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli - 11.
8. Dr.K.Krishnan Baskar Vice Chancellor, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli - 627 012.
http://www.judis.nic.in 43 R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
tsvn Common order in W.P.(MD).Nos.15071 and 16165 of 2018 01-02-2019 http://www.judis.nic.in