Madras High Court
R.Ramakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 June, 2014
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.06.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.Nos.23574 & 24015 of 2008
W.P.No.23574 of 2008
01. R.Ramakrishnan
02. K.M.Kumaraguru
03. K.K.A.Alaguappan
04. E.T.Lokganathan
05. P.Parvatham
06. S.Maheskumar
07. V.Padmanabhan
08. V.Murugan
09. D.Sasi Kumar
10. P.Gurusamy
11. A.Senthilnathan
12. A.R.Kangaraj
13. A.C.Deepa
14. K.Dhanalakshmi
15. S.Kavitha
16. P.R.Kousalya
17. P.Kalaivani .. Petitioners
-vs-
01. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary to Government
Collegiate Education
Fort St.George
Chennai-9
02. The Teachers Recruitment Board for
Govt. of Tamil Nadu
College Road
Chennai
03. The Director of Collegiate Education
College Road, Chennai-6
04. N.Ramya
05. Peer Khan.A
06. S.Ganesan
07. V.Darling Selvi
08. R.Vijayakumar
09. Elu.Thiruvaranganathan
10. V.Selvarani
11. S.M.Krishnan
12. R.Ezhil Jasmine
13. A.Bose
14. N.Premila
15. M.Ragupathi
16. S.Latha
17. A.Latha
18. G.Ravi
19. S.Chellam
20. Rajachitra Swaminathan
21. B.Sellaraja
22. R.Sudha
23. S.Ganesan
24. R.Kalyani
25. C.Selvarani
26. M.Ganesan
27. M.Amudha
28. C.Jeevandam
29. Dr.Y.Lokeswara Choudary
30. Dr.B.Kanagaraj
31. M.Kannagi
32. Dr.V.Bhuvaneswaran
33. Dr.N.Kadirvel
34. Dr.N.Raman
35. Dr.S.Sasikala
36. Dr.T.Naganandhi
37. Dr.S.Rajkumar
38. Dr.M.Devakumar
39. Dr.M.Chandrasekaran
40. Dr.B.Rajasekaran
41. Dr.M.Dhanabalan
42. Dr.A.Suresh
43. Dr.V.Sathuragiri
44. Dr.R.Suresh
(R29 to R44 impleaded as per order dt. 28.7.2011
in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.P.No.23574 of 2008) .. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the Selection and Appointment of the respondents 4 to 28 as Lecturers in Corporate Secretaryship Department of that respective colleges and consequently to issue fresh notification for recruitment to the post of Lecturers to the Corporate Secretaryship Department in all Government Colleges in the State so as to enable the petitioners to apply and participate in the recruitment process.
For Petitioners :: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar for
Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
For Respondents :: Mr.D.Krishnakumar
Special Government Pleader (Edn.)
for R1 to R3
No appearance for R4 to R44
W.P.No.24015 of 2008
A.Senthilnathan .. Petitioner
-vs-
01. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary to Government
Collegiate Education
Fort St.George
Chennai-9
02. The Teachers Recruitment Board rep.by Chairman
Govt. of Tamil Nadu
College Road
Chennai
03. The Director of Collegiate Education
College Road, Chennai-6
04. Dr.Y.Lokeswara Choudary
05. Dr.B.Kanagaraj
06. M.Kannagi
07. Dr.V.Bhuvaneswaran
08. Dr.N.Kadirvel
09. Dr.N.Raman
10. Dr.S.Sasikala
11. Dr.T.Naganandhi
12. Dr.S.Rajkumar
13. Dr.M.Devakumar
14. Dr.M.Chandrasekaran
15. Dr.B.Rajasekaran
16. Dr.M.Dhanabalan
17. Dr.A.Suresh
18. Dr.V.Sathuragiri
19. Dr.R.Suresh
(R4 to R19 impleaded as per order dt. 28.7.2011
in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.P.No.24015 of 2008)
20. University Grants Commission (U.G.C)
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
(R20 impleaded as per order dt. 5.8.2011 in
M.P.No.2 of 2011 in W.P.No.24015 of 2008) .. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Notification of the 2nd respondent in Advt.No.4/2008-09 dated 14.8.2008 and quash the same in so far as the selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer in the Commerce Department is concerned and consequently direct the respondents to issue fresh notification by specifically including Corporate Secretaryship Department also, so as to enable the petitioner to apply for the post of Lecturer.
For Petitioner :: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar for
Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
For Respondents :: Mr.D.Krishnakumar
Special Government Pleader (Edn.)
for R1 to R3
No appearance for R4 to R19
Mr.P.R.Gopinathan for R20
ORDER
These two writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking one and the same relief. W.P.No.23574 of 2008 has been filed by Mr.R.Ramakrishnan and 16 others seeking a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the selection and appointment of the respondents 4 to 28 as Lecturers in Corporate Secretaryship department of the respective colleges with a consequential direction to issue fresh notification for recruitment to the post of Lecturers to the Corporate Secretaryship department in all Government colleges in the State so as to enable the petitioners to apply and participate in the recruitment process.
1(a). W.P.No.24015 of 2008 has been filed by Mr.A.Senthilnathan seeking a prayer for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the notification issued by the second respondent, the Chairman of the Teachers Recruitment Board in Advertisement No.4/2008-09 dated 14.8.2008, to quash the same so far as the selection and appointment to the post of Lecturers in the Commerce Department is concerned, with a consequential direction to issue fresh notification by specifically including the Corporate Secretaryship department also, so as to enable the petitioner to apply for the post of Lecturer.
2. During the course of arguments, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in the first Writ Petition No.23574 of 2008 fairly submitted before this Court that the said writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to cancel the selection and appointment of the respondents 4 to 28 as Lecturers in the Corporate Secretaryship department without challenging the advertisement is not maintainable. Recording the said submission, W.P.No.23574 of 2008 stands dismissed.
2(a). However, assailing the impugned notification issued by the second respondent in Advertisement No.4/2008-09 dated 14.8.2008 in W.P.No.24015 of 2008, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel has contended that the petitioner, after passing the Master of Corporate Secretaryship in 1999 at Alagappa University, Karaikudi and having obtained the M.Phil degree in the year 2004 from the same University, while working as Lecturer in Corporate Secretaryship department in Dr.N.G.P.Arts College, Coimbatore, the Teachers Recruitment Board invited applications from qualified candidates for appointment to the post of Lecturer by direct recruitment in Government Arts and Science colleges numbering 34 for the academic year 2006-07 without including the Corporate Secretaryship department, whereas the Commerce department was included as an eligible qualification for filling up of 24 vacancies in the said department. Since the notification issued in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 11.8.2006 by the Secretary to Government, Collegiate Education, the first respondent herein and also the prospectus issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board, the second respondent herein would amply show that the department of Corporate Secretaryship was not included, resultantly, the petitioner and similarly situated persons with post graduate qualification in Corporate Secretaryship could not apply to the said post.
3. Adding further, he has stated that so far as Commerce department is concerned, persons possessing post graduation in Commerce alone are eligible to be appointed. However, after the recruitment process was over and appointments were made in the respective Government colleges, the petitioner shockingly came to know to his surprise that 25 persons who are all possessing only post graduation in Commerce have been appointed as Lecturers in the Corporate Secretaryship department in various colleges. When the petitioner and similarly situated persons are all holding post graduate degree in Corporate Secretaryship, without including the Corporate Secretaryship department as a qualification in the prospectus, the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right to be appointed as Lecturer in any of the various Government colleges. Therefore, the selection and appointment of those persons are bad, illegal and without any basis, apart from being arbitrary and unreasonable. Adding fuel to fire, the respondents 1 to 3 have further issued another notification in Advertisement No.4/2008-09 dated 14.8.2008 again for recruiting to the post of Lecturer to various departments in the Government colleges for the academic year 2008-09, again without including the Corporate Secretaryship department as one of the departments for the post of Lecturer in Corporate Secretaryship department. Continuing his arguments, the learned counsel further stated that the Commerce department is notified with the total number of vacancies as 58. In the educational qualification column also, only the post graduate qualification in Commerce is mentioned as the required qualification, as a result, the petitioner is prevented from making his application. The further grievance of the petitioner, as contended by the learned counsel, shows that the action of the respondents 1 to 3 for filling up the posts in the Corporate Secretaryship department, without notifying the subject of Corporate Secretaryship as an eligible qualification in the recruitment notification, is arbitrary and unreasonable, as a result, the respondents 1 to 3 have arbitrarily denied the reasonable opportunity of the petitioner and other similarly placed persons to make their applications for recruitment.
4. Adding further, it was stated that during the recruitment year 2006-07, the respondents 1 to 3 had selected 25 persons for Corporate Secretaryship department, even though they were not having the post graduate qualification in Corporate Secretaryship as per the qualification prescribed by the respondents in the prospectus issued for the year 2006-07, while so, the selection and appointment in Corporate Secretaryship department should be held illegal. Repeatedly, even for the subsequent year also, the respondents cannot be permitted to do the same illegality, since the respondents ought to have seen that the persons who do not possess the post graduate qualification in Corporate Secretaryship cannot be appointed as Lecturers in the said department. Again indicating to this Court that when the second respondent issued the impugned notification inviting eligible candidates with a post graduate degree in Commerce to the post of Lecturer in Corporate Secretaryship department without including the Corporate Secretaryship department also, the same is not only unreasonable but also against the law. Had the respondents properly notified the Corporate Secretaryship department in the notification while inviting applications from the candidates with such qualification, the petitioner would have certainly applied and competed with the other candidates. But unfortunately, by not doing so, the respondents have not only closed the doors for the petitioner, but also allowed the other Commerce post graduates to occupy the posts to which they do not have the requisite qualification at all.
5. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner, taking support from the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University and others, (2009) 4 SCC 555, urged this Court to interfere with the impugned notification on the ground that the Apex Court has held that the candidates possessing a Masters degree in Industrial Chemistry cannot be considered for appointment to teach the subject of pure chemistry, since both pure chemistry and industrial chemistry are two different and separate subjects, hence, the respondents cannot be allowed to select only the commerce candidates to handle the corporate secretaryship subject, when the eligible candidates with the post graduate degree in Corporate Secretaryship are very much available to be appointed in the Government Arts colleges. Again placing reliance on one another judgment of the Apex Court in Dr.Bhanu Prasad Panda v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University and others (2001) 8 SCC 532, wherein the Apex Court has held that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are two different subjects and not one and the same, therefore, on selection, a person having a degree in Public Administration should not be appointed as Lecturer in Political Science, merely because the department is of Political Science and Public Administration. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the impugned advertisement which intended to appoint commerce graduates as Lecturers in Corporate Secretaryship subject, since both are different and not one and the same subject for the purpose of maintenance of high standards of teaching.
6. Detailed counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents. Mr.D.Krishnakumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, justifying the notification issued by the second respondent, urged this Court to dismiss the writ petition on the following two grounds. Firstly, the post graduate degree in Corporate Secretaryship is offered only in a very few aided colleges in the State and the number of qualified persons with the post graduate degree in Corporate Secretaryship are quite a few. In fact the post graduate degree in Corporate Secretaryship is not being offered in any of the Government colleges and the students studying B.Com. (Corporate Secretaryship) in under graduate stream also pursue their post graduate degree only in Commerce, therefore, the respondents thought it fit that the Lecturers possessing post graduate degree in Commerce can effectively handle B.Com. (Corporate Secretaryship) course as well, on this basis, it was found that it was not necessary to recruit candidates with the post graduate degree in Corporate Secretaryship. Moreover, when the persons with post graduate degree in commerce and other requisite qualifications as per the University Grants Commission norms are selected by the Teachers Recruitment Board for the post of Lecturer in commerce, as they can also handle B.Com.(Corporate Secretaryship) course, the Teachers Recruitment Board had rightly issued the notification to fill up the vacancies in Commerce. Therefore, taking into account that the post graduate degree in Corporate Secretaryship is not offered in any Government colleges and that the availability of candidates with the post graduate degree in Corporate Secretaryship would be lesser in number, the vacancies in the subject of Corporate Secretaryship have been clubbed with the vacancies in Commerce subject and the overall vacancies in Commerce and Corporate Secretaryship subjects have been notified by the Teachers Recruitment Board while calling for applications from the candidates possessing the post graduate degree in Commerce with other requisite qualifications as per the University Grants Commission norms and as such, the impugned notification issued by the second respondent for filling up the vacancies in Commerce is valid, as it is as per the rules in force.
7. Continuing his arguments, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the persons with post graduate degree in Corporate Secretaryship can alone handle the classes for the under graduate degree in Corporate Secretaryship course is not at all maintainable. Indeed, when the Teachers Recruitment Board, the second respondent herein being a recruiting agency, is selecting persons based on the vacancies notified by the Government, the petitioner cannot find fault with the approach adopted by the second respondent. Reiterating his stand, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that when the syllabus for both B.Com. course and B.Com. (Corporate Secretaryship) course are almost identical and similar, the Lecturers with post graduate degree in Commerce viz., M.Com., are handling the under graduate Corporate Secretaryship course, hence, the Lecturers with post graduate degree in Commerce can handle the under graduate Corporate Secretaryship course effectively, on this basis, there is only a slight deviation in the course content of these two under graduate courses. Moreover, in B.Com. course, there is a paper in Company Law and for B.Com.(Corporate Secretaryship) course, the paper is titled as Company Law and Secretarial Practice. In addition thereto, the reference books recommended for the above two courses are almost the same. In view of that, the impugned notification has been rightly issued calling for eligible candidates possessing post graduate degree in Commerce.
8. Concluding his arguments, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents, heavily relying upon the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others, (2009) 11 SCC 726, wherein the Apex Court, following its judgment in Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, (2007) 4 SCC 737, has held that the Courts do not act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitableness and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate, hence, he has requested this Court not to interfere with the policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that better alternative is available. Adding one more judgment to strengthen his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Medical Council of India v. Sarang and others, (2001) 8 SCC 427, to say that in the matter of academic records, the Courts should not normally interfere and interpret the rules, as such matter should be left to the experts in the field.
9. Heard the submissions and rival submissions of both sides.
10. The petitioner, being a post graduate degree holder in Corporate Secretaryship subject, claims that he is also eligible to be appointed as Lecturer in the Corporate Secretaryship department in all the colleges either Government or private. Initially, Economics department contained the commerce subject as well within the same department. However, after sometime, in order to give specialized teaching, the commerce subject was bifurcated from Economics department and a separate department for Commerce was established. Again in Commerce department, Corporate Secretaryship subject was also originally included. Once again the said subject of Corporate Secretaryship also underwent a change as a separate and distinct department, as a result, today there are three departments, namely, Economics, Commerce and Corporate Secretaryship. In such circumstances, it is manifestly clear that to get appointment in the post of Lecturer in any one of the departments, one has to possess a post graduate degree in the particular subject with a minimum of 55% marks with other qualification as stipulated by the recruiting agency. In this connection, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when a similar issue came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University and others, (2009) 4 SCC 555, the Apex Court, while dealing with the advertisement issued by the University, held that according to the advertisement, the post in Chemistry had fallen vacant and in order to fill up the said post, applications were invited. In the advertisement it was clearly stated that what was advertised was a post of Lecturer in Chemistry. Therefore, it would be necessarily assumed that the candidates possessing a Masters degree in pure Chemistry should submit their applications as against the aforesaid post, on this basis, it was held that the advertisement which was issued for filling up the post of Lecturer in Chemistry, could not have been filled up by a person belonging to the subject of Industrial Chemistry when the same having been specifically not mentioned in the advertisement that a Masters degree holder in the said subject would also be eligible for being considered. The stand of the respondents is that the persons with post graduate degree in Commerce as per the University Grants Commission norms are selected by the Teachers Recruitment Board for the post of Lecturer in Commerce, since they can also handle the B.Com.(Corporate Secretaryship) course. But the said approach adopted by the respondents 1 to 3 to justify the impugned notification which calls for eligible candidates to take classes in Corporate Secretaryship subject without even calling for persons with the post graduate qualification in Corporate Secretaryship, is not in fine tune with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Mohd.Sohrab Khan's case (cited supra).
11. Again when a similar question arose for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Dr.Bhanu Prasad Panda v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University and others, (2001) 8 SCC 532, with regard to the appointment of Lecturer in Political Science in the department of Political Science and Public Administration, finding fault with appointing a person possessing Master's degree in Public Administration, holding that the subjects of Public Administration and Political Science are distinct and separate, on selection, a person having a Master's degree in Public Administration could not be given appointment as Lecturer in Political Science in the department of Political Science and Public Administration, disagreed with the appointment of Lecturer in Political Science, for the sole reason that the candidate was not possessing the essential academic qualification in the relevant subject viz., Post Graduate degree in Political Science for which the post has been advertised specifically to fill up the vacancy in the post of Lecturer in Political Science. Therefore, when a candidate who possessed a Master's degree in the subject of Public Administration cannot be appointed as Lecturer in Political Science, the approach adopted by the respondents to appoint a person with Commerce degree as Lecturer in the subject of Corporate Secretaryship without calling for eligible candidates in the subject of Corporate Secretaryship, is unfair.
12. Be that as it may, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in which the impugned advertisement was issued on 14.8.2008 to fill up 58 posts of Lecturers in Commerce subject by including some of the vacancies in the department of Corporate Secretaryship and the Selection Committee, after the selection process was over, had appointed the suitable candidates on successful selection, this Court, without disturbing any of the appointments made in 2008, hereby directs the first and third respondents to include the Corporate Secretaryship subject also as one of the qualifications for the post of Lecturer in Corporate Secretaryship as and when they arise in all future notifications while filling up the vacancies arising in the Corporate Secretaryship department either in the under graduate or post graduate level. With these observations, W.P.No.24015 of 2008 stands disposed of. No costs.
Index : yes 10.06.2014
Internet : yes
ss
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Department of Collegiate Education
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Chairman
Teachers Recruitment Board
College Road
Chennai 600 006
3. The Director of Collegiate Education
College Road
Chennai 600 006
T.RAJA, J.
ss
Order in
W.P.Nos.23574 & 24015 of 2008
10.06.2014