Madras High Court
Dr.C.Surendera Dilip vs The Vice Chancellor on 7 December, 2020
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
Dr.C.Surendera Dilip ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Vice Chancellor,
Anna University Campus,
Guindy,
Chennai.
2.The Registrar,
Anna University,
Anna University Campus,
Trichy
(After Merger)
The Registrar
Anna University,
Anna University Campus,
Guindy,
Chennai.
3.R.Tamil Magal,
4.A.Adilakshmi
5.G.D.Gayathri
6.S.J.Sardar Basha
1
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013
7.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Opposite to Anna Stadium,
Race Court Road,
Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents
*(R7 is suo motu impleaded vide
order dated 27.02.2018.)
PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
records to the Selection list for appointment to the post of
Lecturer / Assistant Professor / Professor in the Department of
Chemistry issued by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Nil,
dated Nil and quash the same as illegal insofar as it relating to the
appointment of respondents 3 to 6 are concerned and
consequentially, to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner
for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) taking into
account of the marks scored by him in the screening test and
interview, within the period that may stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohamed Imran
For M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.K.Chellapandian
(R1, R2 & R7) Addl.Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.M.Rajarajan,
Addl.Govt.Pleader
For Respondent-3: No Appearance
For Respondents : Mr.V.Balaji
(R4 to R6)
2
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013
ORDER
The Selection List for appointment to the post of Lecturers / Assistant Professors / Professors in the Department of Chemistry, issued by the 2nd Respondent University, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. The Respondents 3 to 6 were selected and the 7th respondent was impleaded subsequently.
2. The contention of the Petitioner is that he is fully qualified and eligible for selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer in Universities. As per the Regulations issued by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), every candidate must possess the qualification of NET or SLET. The Petitioner was appointed, as Lecturer, in Anna University at Tiruchirappalli, on contract basis and he was working to the satisfaction of his superiors with a fond hope that his services would be regularized. The post of Lecturer was latter on redesignated, as 'Visiting Faculty' (Regular Work) from 20.08.2008 onwards.
3. The 2nd Respondent issued a Notification in Recruitment Advertisement, dated 17.09.2008, inviting applications from the 3 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013 eligible candidates, for appointment to the post of Lecturers / Assistant Professors / Professors, in respect of various disciplines, including for the Department of Chemistry. There was no indication in the Notification as regards to the application of Communal Reservation and the total number of posts notified in respect of each discipline. However, it was informed in the Notification that further details would be made available in the Official Web-site of the University. But, it was not disclosed even in the Web-site, as to how many posts were notified in respect of each discipline, in each category of posts. There was no proper application of Rule of Reservation as well. The qualification prescribed by the 2nd Respondent in the Notification is in violation of the qualifications prescribed by the AICTE. It is mandatory to possess the qualification of NET or SLET. But, the Notification did not contain the said mandatory qualification prescribed by the AICTE in its Regulations.
4. The Petitioner states that he is possessing the required qualifications and applied for selection to the Post of Lecturer (Chemistry). The petitioner was a successful candidate in the Written Examination and received the interview call letter, dated 14.08.2009, which was scheduled on 05.09.2009. The petitioner 4 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013 participated in the interview. The petitioner scored 56 marks, out of 100 in the Written Examination and in total, he scored 72 marks. The Petitioner was expecting an order of appointment, as he scored higher marks than that of the other candidates, as well as he belongs to B.C. Category. The impugned Selection List was published and the name of the Petitioner was not enlisted. Contrarily, the candidates, who scored lower marks than the Writ Petitioner were placed under B.C. Categories. The marks obtained by the Respondents 3 to 6, who are enlisted in the impugned Seniority List, under the B.C.Categories, are as follows: -
Sl.No Applicatio Name Comm Screening Interview Total n No unity Test Marks Marks 1 10649 A.Adilakshmi B.C 40 30 70 21 10742P G.D.Gayathri B.C 33 36 69 72 11632 S.J.Sardhar B.C 34 28 62 Basha 90 11828 R.Thamil Magal B.C 45 26 61
5. The selection of the Writ Petitioner was denied, despite the fact that he scored higher marks than that of the Respondents 3 to
6. The Petitioner states that none of the candidates, who were selected as Lecturers through the impugned Selection List, are possessing the requisite mandatory qualification of NET / SLET, as 5 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013 per the AICTE Regulations. The Petitioner immediately raised several queries, by submitting representation. However, there was no reply. He approached the respondents in person, but they have not responded. Numerous complaints were filed against the fraudulent selection and Vigilance and Anticorruption Department also commenced its enquiry, based on the serious complaints sent against the selection. However, no action was taken and therefore, the Petitioner is constrained to move the present Writ Petition.
6. Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, the Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioner mainly contended that the selection itself is void, in view of the fact that the mandatory qualifications prescribed by the AICTE has not been adhered to. None of the candidates selected are possessing the requisite qualification of NET / SLET. The Vigilance and Anticorruption Department Enquiry is also slowed down, for the reasons best known to the Official Respondents and ultimately, the respondents 3 to 6 were appointed, based on the illegal and fraudulent selection. The Petitioner, who is the eligible candidate, who scored higher marks than the respondents 3 to 6, was denied appointment and such an act of the University is not only illegal, but shows the manner in which the public appointments are handled by these Officials. The 6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013 Learned Senior Counsel is of an opinion that the entire Selection List is to be quashed, on the ground that the selection was fraudulent and in violation of the Regulation of the AICTE, which is mandatory.
7. The Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit stating that the NET shall remain as compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer for those with PG.Degree However, the candidates possessing Ph.D. Degree in the subject concerned are exempted from NET for P.G. level and U.G level teaching, as per UGC Notification. The candidates having M.Phil. Degree in the subject concerned is exempted from NET for UG Level teaching. Further, all the M.Phil / Ph.D. Degree obtained prior to 03.04.2009 through Open University / Distance mode are eligible for weightage of marks for teaching experience, as per the letter of communication to the Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, dated 13.06.2014, Higher Education (F2) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, based on the Judgment delivered in W.P.No.5049 of 2014 and W.P.No.8075 of 2014.
7
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013
8. The Department wise (Chemistry) reservation details are available in the Minutes of the Selection Committee Report, as stated below:
No. of Categories
Posts Vacancy GT SC MBC BC BC ST
M
Professors 1 1 - - - - -
Assistant Professors 4 1 1 1 1 - -
Lecturer 24 6 5 5 7 1 0
9. The counter narrates the procedures adopted for
conducting the selection as well as the marks obtained by the petitioner, which is not disputed by the parties. It is further stated that in respect of improper appointments made, the University had forwarded all the improper appointments made by erstwhile Anna Universities of Technology to the Government and obtained G.O(Ms)No.452, Higher Education (11) Department, dated 20.10.2015, which includes Anna University, Tiruchirappalli. The Roster System was also followed, while undertaking the process of selection and appointments. Accordingly, the Respondents 1 and 2 prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013
10. The Respondents 4 to 6 filed counter affidavits. The contention of the contesting respondents are that they are fully qualified for appointment to the Post of Lecturers. The University followed the Communal Rotation also. The Respondents 3 to 5 are falling under B.C. Women Category and the 6th Respondent belongs to B.C.,Muslim category. The marks stated by the petitioner with reference to the respondents 3 to 6 are incorrect. The contesting respondents have completed M.Phil Course and possessing required teaching experience. The contesting respondents attended the interview and based on their performance, marks were awarded by the Interview Committee. The other contentions stated in the Writ affidavit are incorrect and the Petitioner was not selected and therefore, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. The selection proceedings were conducted in accordance with the guidelines issued by the AICTE and the Communal Rotation was also followed scrupulously by the Respondents 1 and 2. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not selected, he filed the present Writ Petition and therefore, the present Writ Petition filed by the unsuccessful candidate cannot be entertained at all.
9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013
11. Mr.K.Chellapandian, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the Official Respondents, contended that the Writ Petitioner was an unsuccessful candidate, challenged the Selection List. With reference to the allegations of irregularities regarding the selection process, admittedly, the Department of Vigilance and Anticorruption undertook the process of investigation. As per the Status Report submitted by the 7th respondent, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, certain violations were identified in the process of recruitment conducted by the Anna University of Technology, Tiruchirappalli. In this regard, a factual report was sent to the Government, through the Vigilance Commissioner, Chennai, for taking necessary action. The Government also accepted the Report of the DVAC and directed the Registrar, Anna University, Chennai, to take further action in respect of the allegations of violation committed in the recruitment of Faculty in Anna University of Technology, Trichy, against Dr.V.Ramachandran, former Vice Chancellor, as per the Statutes and Acts of the University, vide G.O.(2D)No.39, Higher Education (11) Department, dated 10.07.2017. However, it is stated by the 7th Respondent that no enquiry was conducted regarding irregularities made in the recruitment to the post of Lecturers / 10 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013 Assistant Professors / Professors in the Department of Chemistry in connection With Petitioner herein. The documents collected during the course of the detailed enquiry will be handed over to the University, at the earliest.
12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents also reiterated that the petitioner has not established any such irregularities, with reference to the Statutes and the Respondents 3 to 6 were appointed in consonance with the procedures contemplated. The Writ Petitioner, being an unsuccessful candidate, cannot challenge the Selection List, as the selection was made, by following the Communal Rotation as well as the norms fixed by the AICTE.
13. Considering the pleadings as well as the arguments as advanced by the respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties to the Lis on hand, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Regulations issued by the AICTE is mandatory and binding on the Universities across the Country. AICTE norms prescribes that SLET / NET is the requisite qualification for selection to the post of Lecturers. It is not disputed by the official respondents that SLET / NET is the essential qualification for 11 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013 appointment to the post of Lecturers / Assistant Professors / Professors. The National Council for Vocational Training also issued directives that SLET / NET should be strictly followed, while undertaking the process of recruitment to the Teaching faculty. The importance of the qualification of SLET / NET, as minimum eligibility condition for appointment of Lecturers / Assistant Professors in Higher Educational Institutions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India elaborately adjudicated in the case of P.Suseela and Others Vs. University Grant Commission and Others reported in (2015 (8) SCC 129) and held as follows:-
7. Pursuant to this directive, on 30.06.2010, UGC framed the 2010 Regulations, Para 3.3.1 of which states:
“3.3.1. NET / SLET / SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in universities / colleges / institutions:
Provided however, that
candidates, who are or have been
awarded a PhD degree in
accordance with the University
12
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013
Grants Commission (Minimum
Standards and Procedure for
Award of PhD Degree)
Regulations, 2009, shall be
exempted from the requirement of
the minimum eligibility condition
of NET / SLET / SET for
recruitment and appointment of
Assistant Professor or equivalent
positions in universities / colleges /
institutions.”
14. Therefore, the qualification of SLET / NET is not only mandatory, but violation in this regard is to be seriously viewed, as the same would affect the principles of uniform to be followed by all Universities across the Country. In the present case, the contesting Respondents 3 to 6 have not possessed the mandatory qualification of SLET / NET. This apart, the 7th respondent, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Department, who was impleaded suo motu by this Court submitted a Status Report, clearly stating that there were certain violations committed in the recruitment of faculty in Anna University of Technology, Trichy and the factual Report was sent to the Government, for taking necessary action. Though complete 13 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013 details are not provided by the 7th respondent before this Court, the Vigilance and Anticorruption Department found that the irregularities occurred in the process of recruitment and a Report was submitted for initiating necessary action. Though it is stated that no enquiry was conducted regarding the irregularities made in the recruitment to the Post of Lecturers / Assistant Professors / Professors in the Department of Chemistry, in connection with the writ petitioner, it is unambiguous that the Respondents 3 to 6 were selected knowing the fact that they were not possessing the requisite qualification of SLET / NET, as prescribed in the AICTE Regulations.
15. The slightest violation or deviation in the process of selection cannot be ignored by the Courts. Violation in the process of selection would certainly cause denial of equal opportunity to the eligible candidates. The meritorious candidates will get frustrated and the young minds of this Great Nation will lose confidence in the Public Recruitment System. Any Public Recruitment System must be strictly in consonance with the Constitutional mandate. In the event of violation, Court cannot close its eyes and should not view as if such mistakes are negligible. In the event of taking a lenient view, the consequences would be disastrous and not only we are 14 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013 sending a negative message, but it will result in denial of equal opportunity to the meritorious candidates, who are all longing to secure public employment, by participating in the open competitive process.
16. Equal opportunity in public employment is Constitutional mandate. All eligible candidates, who are all aspiring to secure public employment must be provided with an opportunity to participate in the process of selection. The mandatory qualifications are to be scrupulously followed with reference to the Rules in force. The Authorities Competent must be doubly cautious, while undertaking the process of recruitment. In the event of any violation in the matter of the procedures to be adopted in selection, the same should be not only viewed seriously, but all necessary actions are to be initiated against the erred Officials, who are all responsible and accountable for such violations. The poor and meritorious candidates from the rural areas are wandering and longing to secure public employment. Thus, the concept of Social Justice enunciated under the Constitution must be the goal, by providing equal opportunity to all the citizen. If back door selections and appointments are permitted, then, it would be dangerous and will be an attack on the very basic principles 15 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013 enunciated in the Preamble of the Constitution. The Authorities Competent are expected to be sensitive in the matter of selection and appointment, in view of the fact that public appointment is a dream for many young persons in this Country. Many young, energetic youth are developing an idea to serve the benefits of the Great Nation. They are awaiting for an opportunity to serve the Nation in a better manner. The Authorities Competent by committing violations can never be allowed to crush the dreams of such young minds of this Great Nation, who are all having a greater vision for the future India.
17. The minimum qualification and experience prescribed for teaching post in Humanities and Sciences issued in Table E-6, under AICTE Regulations, reads as follows:-
Table E-6 MINIMUM QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE PRESCRIBED FOR TEACHING POST IN HUMANITIES AND SCIENCES DEGREE LEVEL TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS 16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013 SL. CADRE QUALIFICATION EXPERIENCE No. 1 Lecturer Good academic record with at No Minimum least 55% marks or an equivalent requirement CGPA at the Master's Level, in the relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from a Foreign University.
Besides fulfilling the above
qualifications, candidates should
have cleared the National
Eligibility Test (NET) for Lecturers
conducted by the UGC, CSIR or
similar test accredited by the UGC
2 Assistant Good academic record with at 5 years experience
Professor least 55% marks or an equivalent in Teaching and /or
CGPA at the Master's level and Research excluding
Ph.D., degree in the relevant the period spent for
subject. obtaining the
degree and has
made some mark in
the areas of
Scholarship as
evidenced by quality
of publications,
contribution to
educational
innovation, design
of new courses and
curricula.
3 Professor Good academic record with at
least 55% marks or an equivalent
CGPA at the Master's level and
Ph.D., degree in appropriate
branch of Humanities and
Sciences. (Desirable : Post-
Doctoral work in appropriate
branch of Humanities &
Sciences).
17
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013
18. It is an admitted fact that the Respondents 3 to 5 are not possessing the minimum educational qualification of passing in NET / SLET and further, they have not possessed PhD., Degree.
Thus, they are not at all qualified for appointment to the post of Lecturers. As far as the 6th Respondent / S.J.Sardar Basha is concerned, he has completed PhD., Degree. Whether the said PhD., Degree possessed by him is in accordance with AICTE Regulations or not and whether an exemption is granted from passing SLET / NET or not is to be verified by the Respondents 1 and 2 and accordingly, a decision is to be taken either to cancel his appointment or not. However, the respondents 3 to 5 are concerned, they are not qualified and therefore, there is no reason to sustain their appointments.
19. With reference to the Writ Petition on hand, there are many gray areas in the matter of selection. The Recruitment Notification itself is ambiguous. All necessary particulars are not provided in the advertisement. The petitioner states that the complete details are not even provided in the Web-site of the Universities. With this back ground the selection procedures was conducted. The Apex Court of India in the Judgment cited supra 18 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013 ruled that possessing the qualification of NET / SLET is mandatory, for appointment to the post of Lecturers / Assistant Professors / Professors. The AICTE also issued Regulations stating that the qualification of NET / SLET is mandatory. The 7th Respondent, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Department also stated that there were violations in the matter of recruitment in Anna Universities, Tiruchirappalli Centre. Several actions were initiated, including the action against the then Vice Chancellor. The Respondents 3 to 6 are not possessing the qualification of NET / SLET, at the time of selection. This being the factum established, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Writ Petition deserves to be considered.
20. Under these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at conclusion that the selection conducted by the Respondent University is in violation of the AICTE Regulations and selected candidates are also not qualified for appointment to the post of Lecturers / Assistant Professors / Professors. Accordingly, the following orders are passed;
(i). The Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to verify the educational qualification of the 19 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013 Respondents 3 to 6, with reference to the AICTE Regulations. If the qualification possessed by the Respondents 3 to 6 is not in accordance with the AICTE Regulations, then, issue appropriate orders cancelling their appointments.
(ii). The 7th Respondent is directed to conduct further investigation with reference to the entire selection conducted, for recruitment to the post of Lecturers / Assistant Professors / Professors, in the Department of Chemistry and submit an Additional Report to the Government, enabling the Government to institute further action, in accordance with law.
(iii). The Official Respondents are at liberty to conduct a fresh selection, by strictly following the Rules in force as well as the procedures contemplated.
(iv). The Writ Petitioner, if otherwise qualified, is at liberty to participate in the process of selection, if any notified by the University.
20 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013
21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
07.12.2020
Index :Yes / No
Internet :Yes / No
MPK
To
1.The Vice Chancellor,
Anna University Campus,
Guindy,
Chennai.
2.The Registrar,
Anna University,
Anna University Campus,
Trichy
(After Merger)
The Registrar
Anna University,
Anna University Campus,
Guindy,
Chennai.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Opposite to Anna Stadium, Race Court Road, Tiruchirappalli.
21 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
MPK W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2013 07.12.2020 22 http://www.judis.nic.in