Madras High Court
K.Nagu Thevan @ Ashok Kumar vs The Chairman on 15 December, 2015
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.12.2015
(Reserved on 04.09.2015)
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.RAJA
W.P. (MD) No.6043 of 2015
K.Nagu Thevan @ Ashok Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai,
D.P.I. Complex,
College Road, Chennai ? 600 006.
2.The Member Secretary,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai,
D.P.I. Complex,
College Road, Chennai ? 600 006.
3.R.Ananda Kumaran
4.S.Anasuya ... Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to the selection of the respondents 3 and 4 to the post of
Assistant Professor (History) Tamil Medium as per the impugned provisional
list of candidates selected after oral interview dated 08.04.2015 published
by the respondents 1 and 2, and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Assistant Professor
(History) Tamil Medium.
!For petitioner .. Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan
for Mr.B.Jameel Arasu
^For R1 & R2 .. Mr.S.Chellapandian
For R4 -- Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For R3 .. No Appearance
:ORDER
Challenging the impugned proceedings dated 08.04.2015 of the respondents 1 and 2 in selecting the respondents 3 and 4 to the post of Assistant Professor (History) Tamil Medium, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the same, with a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him in the said post.
2. It is the claim of the petitioner that he had passed S.S.L.C. (Tamil Medium) in the year 1989, Higher Secondary Examination Tamil Medium in the year 1991, B.A. (History) Tamil Medium during the year 1996, M.A. (History) Tamil Medium in the year 1998 and M.Phil. (History) in the year 2008. Thereafter, he has also completed SLET/NET Examination and obtained certificates thereof. He belongs to MBC / DNC GT category. Whileso, the Teachers Recruitment Board / second respondent herein issued a notification / advertisement on 28.05.2013 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for Government Arts and Science Colleges 2012 to fill up 1093 posts, including 80 vacancies of History subject. As per the advertisement, one should have obtained a degree from a recognized University and also should have obtained Ph.D Degree, besides completion of SLET/NET. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner has also applied for the said post and the second respondent, on scrutinizing his application, sent a letter dated 14.11.2013 informing that the certificate verification would be conducted on 27.11.2013 at the office of the respondent Board. Accordingly, the petitioner also appeared for the certificate verification on 27.11.2013 and produced all his school and college certificates, along with other relevant documents as required by the respondent Board. Thereafter, the second respondent has published the list of marks and eligibility of all candidates through website on 26.01.2014 and in the said list, the petitioner's name was found at Sl.No.425 based on his communal quota MBC/DNC GT, whereas the names of the respondents 3 and 4 were found at Sl.Nos.430 and 79 respectively.
3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for MBC/DNC category, the respondent Board has earmarked three posts for those persons who studied in Tamil Medium and out of three posts, one post reserved for Male candidate and two posts reserved for women candidate as per the communal roster. In this background, the respondent, on completion of the certificate verification, published a provisional list of candidates for oral interview on 06.12.2014 and in the said list, the petitioner's name was found at Sl.No.315 mentioning specifically as MBC/DNC Y. Therefore, the petitioner was under fond hope that he would be selected for the one post meant for the Assistant Professor (Male Candidate) / Tamil Medium under the MBC/DNC Y, for, no one was selected for the said post with regard to that category. In the said list, the name of the third respondent was found at Sl.No.323 mentioning as MBC/DNC ONLY, however, there was no mentioning made with regard to Tamil Medium, morefully, the symbol of Y. It is further submitted that if at all the third respondent had passed all the examinations in Tamil Medium, the respondent Board should have shown the symbol Y against his name found at Sl.No.323, however, the same was omitted as he was not possessing the said qualification.
4. Similarly, in the said list, the name of the fourth respondent was found at Sl.No.129 mentioning the category as MBC/DNC. Though the fourth respondent did not possess Tamil Medium, due to non-availability of women candidate, the respondent Board have selected the fourth respondent for the said post. Whileso, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the third respondent was found in the selected list of candidates, whereas his name has been left out. In such circumstances, it is further submitted that even though the third respondent did not possess the qualification of History Tamil Medium, which is more important, the respondent Board have selected him in the place of the petitioner and thus, such procedure adopted by the respondent Board in selecting the third respondent is a clear illegality and irregularity, he pleaded.
5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner has passed Ph.D and also SLET/NET examinations, the respondent Board have committed serious irregularity in selecting the candidates, who have not passed SLET/NET examinations and therefore, such selection is a clear violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.Suseela and others v. University Grants Commission (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.36023-36032 of 2010, dated March 16, 2015, reported in 2015 (8) SCC 129) wherein it is held that even Ph.D holders should obtain NET/SLET/SET qualifications, unless the UGC has provided for any exemption. While this being the settled legal position, the respondent Board have miserably failed to follow such ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, hence, the selection of the third respondent is liable to be set aside, he pleaded.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the respondent Board have notified 1093 posts in various subjects vide advertisement dated 28.05.2013 and out of 1093 posts, 80 posts were earmarked for the subject of History, including 16 posts for selection of those persons who have studied in Tamil Medium. The petitioner was one among the candidates applied for the post of Assistant Professor in History under Tamil Medium Preferential basis. During the certificate verification, he was awarded 6 marks for his educational qualification and thereafter, 4 marks for interview, and as such, the petitioner secured 10 marks. But, the cut-off marks of the last candidate selected in MBC(G) Tamil Medium category is 13 marks and thus, the petitioner was not selected on Tamil Medium preferential category, he pleaded.
7. It is further submitted that while the selection list was drawn, the third respondent, who have secured 13 marks (6 marks in the certificate verification + 7 marks in the Interview), has been selected under MBC (G) TM category. For two vacancies of MBC(W) TM, one by name N.Parvathi, who has secured 11 marks (6 marks in the certificate verification + 5 marks in the Interview) has been selected under MBC (W) TM category and for the remaining one vacancy, due to non-availability of women Tamil Medium candidate, the fourth respondent herein, who has secured 22 marks (13 marks in the certificate verification + 9 marks in the interview), has been selected under non-preferential basis as per the norms. To justify the selection of fourth respondent, it is further submitted that as per the existing rules of procedure, if no suitable candidates are available to consider under Tamil Medium preferential category, such vacancies can be filled up with non-preferential basis candidates. Whileso, in the present recruitment of Assistant Professor in History, for two vacancies of MBC (W) TM, only one suitable candidate was available on Tamil Medium Preferential basis and for the remaining one vacancy, the fourth respondent herein, who has secured 22 marks, has been selected, as admittedly no candidate was available on Tamil Medium preferential basis. Thus, the selection of fourth respondent is in order, hence, he pleaded, no interference is called for.
8. Answering the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.Suseela's case(cited supra), the third respondent cannot be appointed as he admittedly did not pass SLET/NET examinations, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 that as per the existing University Grants Commission Regulations, the respondent Board prescribed the qualification for the post of Assistant Professors and by following the said Regulations, the respondent Board have already completed the selection process of Assistant Professors-2012, which is much before the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.Suseela delivered on 16.03.2015, therefore, the selection process cannot be disturbed, for, before the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is made clear that a person, who has got Ph.D., is exempted from passing NET/SLET examination, hence, the contention of the petitioner that the fourth respondent has not passed SLET/NET examination is bereft of any merit. On that basis, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available before this Court.
10. It is seen from the prospectus of the first respondent Board filed in support of the writ petition that out of 80 vacancies of History Subject, under MBC/DNC category, three vacancies were earmarked for those persons who studied in Tamil Medium and out of three vacancies, two vacancies were allotted to Women candidates and one vacancy was allotted to Male candidate. While such being the admitted vacancy position, the petitioner has secured 10 marks (6 marks in the certificate verification + 4 marks in the interview), whereas the third respondent secured 13 marks (6 marks in the certificate verification + 7 marks in the interview), therefore, the petitioner cannot find fault with the selection of third respondent, as he did not reach the cut-off marks of 13 marks as fixed by the respondent Board for the Male candidates belonging to MBC (G) TM category. For the two vacancies of MBC(W)TM category, one N.Parvathi was selected as she secured 11 marks (6 marks in the certificate verification + 5 marks in the interview) and for the remaining one vacancy, the fourth respondent was selected as she secured 22 marks (13 marks in the certificate verification + 9 marks in the interview) due to non-availability of women Tamil Medium candidate. Therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner, who has failed to secure the cut-off marks as stated above, has no locus-standi to say that the appointment of the respondents 3 and 4 as illegal.
11. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from obtaining Ph.D. degree, he has passed SLET/NET examination, therefore, he will have to be considered for the post of Assistant Professor(History) as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.Suseela's case (cited supra), which held that a pass in SLET/NET examination is mandatory for selection to the post of Assistant Professor, is bereft of any substance, because, such contention of the petitioner cannot be applied to the case on hand, since the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered the said judgment only on 16.03.2015, whereas the respondent Board issued notification on 28.05.2013 calling for applications from eligible candidates to fill up the said post, therefore, since the respondent Board have started the selection process well before the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the selection process of the respondent Board as per the existing University Grants Commission Regulations to fill up the said post, cannot be interfered with.
12. In fine, for the reasons stated above, I find no ground to find fault with the appointment of the respondents 3 and 4 as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of any merit. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, D.P.I. Complex, College Road, Chennai ? 600 006.
2.The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, D.P.I. Complex, College Road, Chennai ? 600 006..