Faculty Association Of National ... vs National Institute Of Technology on 12 July, 2010

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Faculty Association Of National ... vs National Institute Of Technology on 12 July, 2010

2.The petitioner is a registered Society and it consists of members, who are employed in the respondent Institute and in this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the advertisement issued by the respondent, calling for applications for faculty positions for various departments from Indian Nationals.

3.The case of the petitioner is that as per section 15 of the National Institute of Technology Act 2007, all the National institutes shall have the control and general regulation and be responsible for the maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examination in the Institute and shall exercise such other duties as may be conferred upon it by the statutes and without consulting the Board of Governors, issued the advertisement calling for applications for faculty positions in various departments, without estimating the number of positions for each department and therefore, the action of the Board of Governors is illegal and hence, the advertisement called for by the respondent is liable to be quashed.

4.The respondent denied the allegations that by calling for applications for various faculty positions, the work load will be unequally distributed among various departments and the apprehension of the petitioner is that a department having lesser work load is given more number of persons and that would affect the morale of the teaching staff, are all false and baseless. It is stated that the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi, by its letter, dated 08.05.2008 fixed the norms for additional faculty based on the student strength and as per norms fixed by the Government of India, approval for 307 faculty members and 338 non-faculty members was granted and within the approval list, the applications were called for. It is further stated that as per section 13 of the NIT Act, Board of Governors are the legitimate authority in the academic matters and the Senate is only entrusted with the job of framing and revising the curricula and syllabi and make arrangements for conduct of examinations, make recommendations to Board for conferment or grant of degrees etc. and the Senate has no power in the matter of appointments. It is further stated that between March 2006 and October 2008, the Board of Governors recruited 191 faculty members for various departments without involving the Senate and as a matter of fact, as per the constitution of the Board of Governors, two of the Senate members are also form part of the Board of Governors and hence, the apprehension of the petitioner has no basis and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that without ascertaining the number of faculty members required for each department, the Board of Governors proceeded with the advertisement calling for applications and that would lead to appointment of excess number of faculties in certain departments where student strength is less and as a result of that, some faculty members will force to do more work. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondent ought to have taken the estimate of required number of posts for each department after fully taking into account their individual respective work load and once that process is taken, there will be equal distribution of faculty members in all department corresponding to the work load.

6.He further submitted that under Section 15 of the NIT Act the Board of Governors is not legitimate authority in the matter of general education and in the matter of maintaining standards of instruction, education and examination and without consulting the Senate, the advertisement was issued by the Board of Governors, which is against the provision of the Act and it is liable to be quashed.

7.On the other hand, Ms.Maria Roseline, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Senate has no role to play in the matter of appointment and the role of the Senate has been prescribed under the Act and as per Section 13 of the Act, the Board of Governor is the competent authority in the matter of appointment of faculty members. She further submitted that as per the approval granted by the Government of India, the faculty members are appointed and in that, the Senate was not involved in the matter of appointment and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, without consulting, the advertisement was made and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed cannot be accepted.

8.To appreciate the contention of the parties, we will have to see the various provisions of the NIT Act 2007.

9.It is seen from section 10 of the Act, Board of Governors, senate and such other authorities as may be declared by the State to be the authorities of the Institute. As per section 11, Board of Governors is consisting of the Chairman to be nominated by the Visitors, Director, ex-officio and two persons not below the rank of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India to be nominated by the Central Government two persons to be nominated by the State Government where the institute is situate, two persons at least one of whom shall be a woman having practical experience in respect of education, engineering or science and one professor and one assistant professor or a lecturer nominated by the Senate. Therefore, it is seen from the composition of Board of Governors, two of the Senate members are included in the Board of Governors and under Section 15 of the Act, Senate has the control and general regulation and is responsible for the maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examination in the Institute. From this, it cannot be inferred that the Senate has any role to play in the matter of appointment though the Senate was entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the standards of instruction, education and examination in the Institute and that cannot be equated with the power of the appointment. As a matter of fact, under section 13(2)(d), the Board of Governors shall institute and appoint persons to academic as well as other posts in the institute.

10.As per section 25(f) & (g), the Statutes may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely- the qualification of teachers of the Institute, the classification, the method of appointment and the determination of the terms and conditions of service of teachers and other staff of the Institute.

11.Further, as per section 24, all appointments of the staff of every Institute, except that of the Director and Deputy Director, shall be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Statutes, by the Board, if the appointment is made on the academic staff in the post of Lecturer or above or if the appointment is made on the non-academic staff in any cadre the maximum of the pay scale for which exceeds rupees ten thousand five hundred.

12.Further, as per Rule 5 of the respondent society, the Constitution of Senate is stated and the power is stated in Rule 5(2) . A reading of the Rule 5 would make it clear, no power is given to Senate in the matter of appointment of teachers or Lecturers. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that as per the statute of the respondent, the Board of Governors has no power to appoint Lecturers or other teaching staff. As a matter of fact, it is admitted in the writ petition that the first statute of the respondent was framed only on 23.04.2009 and till then, the provisions applicable to the erstwhile society were adopted and followed. As stated supra, the rules of the society did not empower the Senate to appoint any person nor any role is assigned to the Senate in the matter of appointment. Further, the contention that without taking into account the required number of posts for each department, the advertisement should not be called for cannot be accepted. If the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is accepted, then every year there will be a change in the number of teaching staff required for each department depending on the admission of students to various departments and if the appointment is to be made on that basis, then every year some persons have to be sent out depending upon the requirement of teaching staff in a particular department and some faculty members have to be inducted considering the higher number of students admitted in that department and that is practically impossible. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that as per the instructions of the Government, approved strength of required faculty members for the respondent institute has been approved and within that approval strength only, the applications were called for and hence, it cannot be challenged.

13.Further, as stated supra, the Board of Governors are the competent authority to call for advertisement and two of the members of the petitioner's Association are also form part of the Board of Governors and hence, they would have taken care of number of teaching staffs required for teaching the Institute an hence, the petitioner cannot challenge the action of the Board of Governors in issuing the advertisement .

14.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court