Madras High Court
G.Kalaiyarasan vs The Excellency The Governor on 14 August, 2012
Author: Vinod K Sharma
Bench: Vinod K Sharma
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14/08/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE VINOD K SHARMA Writ Petition (MD) No.11190 of 2012 G.Kalaiyarasan S/o.S.Ganesan 3/609 9th street North Extension Subramaniapuram Karaikudi town, Sivagangai District. ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Excellency The Governor The State of Tamil Nadu, The Chancellor of Alagappa University, Raj Bhavan, Guindy, Chennai. 2.The Vice Chancellor, Alagappa University Alagappapuram Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. 3.The Registrar Alagappa University Alagappapuram, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. 4.S.P.Denisia Principal Alagappa University College of Education, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Declaration to declare the appointment of 4th respondent herein as Principal of the Alagappa University College of Education, Karaikudi by the respondents 1 to 3 as illegal and void and direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to appoint the petitioner as Principal of the Alagappa University College of Education, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. !For petitioner ... R.Sundar Srinivasan ^For Respondents ... No appearance :ORDER
The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for declaring the appointment of 4th respondent herein as Principal of the Alagappa University College of Education, Karaikudi to be illegal and void and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 3 herein to appoint the petitioner as Principal of the Alagappa University College of Education, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
2. The petitioner is working in Alagappa University for the past 18 years and for the past four year and three months, the petitioner is working as Associate Professor in the pay scale of Rs.43,250+9,000+33,963+1,400+250=Rs.8,87,863/-. Advertisement was issued in the newspaper dated 08.04.2012 calling for application from eligible candidates for the post of Principal, Alagappa University College of Education. The post was to filled up by general category candidate. The qualification prescribed for the post were as under:
a) A masters degree with atleast 55% marks and M.Ed., degree with atleast 55% marks by a recognised University.
b) A Ph.D., degree in concerned/allied/relevant disciplines in the institution concerned with the evidence of published work and research guidance.
c) Associate Professor/Professor with a total experience of 15 years of teaching/research or administration in Universities, colleges and other Institutions of Higher Education.
d) A minimum score as stipulated in the academic performance indicator (API) based performance based appraisal system (PBAS) set out in the UGC Regulations, 2010 in appendix -3.
3. The respondent No.4 also applied along with the petitioner and others. On assessment of the documents and qualification of the candidates, University shortlisted four candidates, who were called for interview. In pursuance to the selection by the selection committee, respondent No.4 has been appointed as Principal.
4. The appointment of respondent No.4 has been challenged only on the ground that the petitioner is better qualified than the respondent No.4 and further more, the petitioner being an employee of Alagappa University was hopeful that he would be selected in preference to respondent No.4. It is, therefore, contended that the appointment of respondent No.4 deserves to be set aside and instead, the petitioner deserves to be appointed.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of appointment of respondent No.4 also filed a representation, which according to the petitioner, has not been decided.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the order of appointment of respondent No.4 cannot be sustained, as the qualification prescribed reproduced above would show that the petitioner had better qualification than the respondent No.4 and therefore, he had a preferential right of appointment.
7. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be noticed to be rejected. It is not disputed that selection committee based on result of interview, selected respondent No.4, who is fully qualified to be appointed, based on evaluation of his qualification, experience and published work. In academic matters, the Court have a very limited role, particularly when no malafide is alleged against selection committee. It is well settled law that Courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over decision of experts.
8. It is not disputed that the respondent No.4 is fully eligible for appointment. It was for the selection committee to select the most suitable candidate. This Court does not sit in appeal or cannot substitute its opinion from the one formed by selection committee, in the absence of allegation of any malafide or violation of statutory provision of law. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not alleged any malafide or violation of Rule or regulation, except submitting that the petitioner is a better candidate than respondent No.4.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his representation deserves to be decided also cannot be accepted, as the process of selection is not a subject matter of review, nor petitioner has any legal right to file representation to challenge the selection before the same authority which on basis of merit has selected respondent No.4.
10. For the reasons stated, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
RR To
1.The Excellency The Governor The State of Tamil Nadu, The Chancellor of Alagappa University, Raj Bhavan, Guindy, Chennai.
2.The Vice Chancellor, Alagappa University Alagappapuram Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
3.The Registrar Alagappa University Alagappapuram, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.