Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. When interim relief was sought for in these writ appeals, this Court directed that, in view of the nature of the issues involved, the main writ petitions themselves be posted along with the writ appeals for final disposal. The writ petitions therefore, were heard along with the writ appeals.

4. The petitioner has filed the writ petitions on the following averments: He is a Law Graduate, who has also been enrolled as an Advocate. He contemplated joining M.A. in Criminology in the first respondent University and applied for the same. He found that the third respondent, who was appointed as a Reader in the Department of Criminology, does not possess the basic qualifications required by the Rules and Regulations of the first respondent and the basic norms prescribed for the above post by the University Grants Commission. The necessary qualifications were advertised in the local dailies on the basis of the rules and regulations of the first respondent, which required that a Reader in Criminology, should have a Post Graduate degree either in the subject or in related subject, but should have Ph.D in the subjects, with teaching and research experience of not less than five years. The Specialisation required at the Doctoral level was Dilinquency. As against these basic qualifications, the third respondent, who, though he held an M.Sc., degree in Geography and an M.A., Degree in Criminology, and a Ph.D. only in Geography. He was not a Ph.D. in Criminology. Even his teaching experience, which at the time of the appointment was about 15 years, was wholly as a Tutor and later as Assistant Professor in Geography. He had no teaching and research experience in Criminology. The specialisation called for in the advertisement was Delinquency, which the third respondent did not have. Even his thesis for the Ph.D. only related to a pattern of crime in a particular geographical area viz., Madras City. The third respondent thus lacked even the basis qualifications. The Establishment Section of the University, finding that the third respondent did not have the basis qualifications for the post, did not send him the interview card. Later, at the instance of the second respondent, the interview card was sent to the third respondent just a few hours before the interview. The fifth respondent, who also attended the same interview for the same post, had an M.A., Degree in Criminology with Ph.D., in Criminology with five years of teaching and research experience in that subject. Overlooking the legitimate claims of the fifth respondent, for extraneous considerations and in bad faith, the second respondent had appointed the third respondent to the post. The fifth respondent filed (P. Thiagaraj v. University of Madras and Ors.) W.P. No. 3270 of 1985 before this Court for a writ of Prohibition, restraining the first respondent from appointing the third respondent since the latter was not qualified. The writ petition, however, later came to be dismissed as infructuous, as the order appointing the third respondent, had already been issued prior to the filing of the writ petition. The fifth respondent thereupon filed W.P. No. 4289 of 1985 challenging the appointment. Meantime the post of Lecturer in the Department of Criminology was advertised and the fifth respondent, who applied was interviewed and selected. The appointment order was, however, withheld on the advise of the second respondent that the appointment order would not be issued to him unless he withdrew W.P. No. 4289 of 1985 (R. Thiagaraj v. Vice Chancellor, University of Madras and 3 Ors.) The fifth respondent, left with no other alternative, withdrew the writ petition. The appointment order was thereafter issued to the fifth respondent. Though the illegality in the appointment of the third respondent as a Reader in the Department of Criminology was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities, the third respondent was able to scuttle every representation, by bringing pressure on the concerned authorities. Finding the third respondent not qualified and not competent, research students are unwilling to get themselves registered under him. On pressure, one student registered himself under the third respondent for M.Phil, in Criminology. The second respondent was contemplating confirming the third respondent in the post, Being a public post, the petitioner was entitled to have in the post, one who had the basic qualifications as prescribed by the Statute and Regulations of the University. Appointing persons who were not qualified and who were not eligible for appointment, does great injustice to the future of the students. The appointment of the third respondent had to be quashed and writ of quo warranto issued against him. Respondents 1 and 2 had to be restrained from confirming the third respondent in the post and also from assigning research students of Criminology to the third respondent.

6. More or less to the same effect was the counter filed by the second respondent, who, in particular, stated that the selection of the third respondent was not his individual selection, but was the collective decision of the selection committee. The averments of mala fides and other insinuations made against him were denied.

7. The third respondent filed a lengthy counter, running to 40 pages. On the question of basic qualification, the third respondent also contended that he does possess the basic qualification as per the rules of the University, on the basis of which the advertisement was made. In particular, he contended that since a post graduate degree in a related subject was permitted, Ph.D. in a related subject should also be implied to have been permitted by the University. The qualification, therefore, relating to Ph.D., should be read as "Ph.D. in the subject or in a related subject". Those words "or in a related subject" should be read into the Ordinance prescribing basic qualifications, without which the entire qualification would be meaningless. In the Madras University, there were only four post graduates in Criminology with a Ph.D. Three of them are respondents 3, 4, and 5. Certain disciplines in the first respondent University were being conducted on an inter-disciplinary basis and are taught by teachers having a Ph.D. in allied subjects. Even for M.A. Criminology only seven out of ten papers were taught by members of the University Faculty, while remaining papers were handled by outsiders, possessing no academic qualification in Criminology. The counter thereafter at great length deals with certain aspects peculiar to the subject "criminology". According to the third respondent, criminology is a multi-disciplinary social science, emerging from sociology, psychology, law, anthropology and other sciences and was, therefore, to be handled by persons belonging to different disciplines. Though his entire teaching experience of 15 years was in Geography and though he possessed a Ph.D. in Geography, his great interest in criminology prompted him to take for specialisation a Crimino Geographical Study, on the basis of which Ph.D. in Geography was awarded. Geography and Criminology are complementary. The counter also gives a summary of the thesis submitted by him, as also a list of papers presented by him on criminology.

16. The admitted qualifications of the third respondent are:

(i) B.Sc. in Geography,

(ii) M.A. in Criminology and Forensic Science Second Class;

(iii) M.Sc. in Geography-Second Class

(iv) Ph.D. in Geography-the title of the thesis being the "spatial pattern of Crimes and Criminal behaviour in Madras City" A Crimino geographical study (Geography)

(v) Teaching experience from 1968 to 1985 as Tutor in and later as Assistant Professor in Geography, first in Periyar E.V.R. College, Tiruchirapalli and later in the Presidency College, Madras.

20. Bearing the above principles in mind, we proceed to assess the legal merit of the contention of respondents 1 to 3. The requirement of "Ph.D. in the subject" is a requirement common to the three categories of University teachers, viz., Professors, Readers and Lecturers. It is also common to all the teachers in all the Departments, except where different qualifications have been specifically provided. The advertisement shows that this requirement is common to all the posts in the Departments advertised, except for the posts in the post-graduate Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, which are to be referred to the prospectus. If the words "or in the related subject" are to be added to the requirement of "Ph.D. in the subject", it would apply not only to the third respondent, but to all teachers including Professors and Lecturers in all the departments of the first respondent. This question, therefore, has to be considered de hors the nature of the discipline in which the third respondent has done Ph.D. and the nature of any inter-disciplinary subjects that the third respondent has selected for the thesis. It is also significant that the University also maintains besides full time teachers, to whom all the above regulations relate, part-time teachers as well. These distinct qualifications prescribed, are only for full-time teachers.