Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. Now the controversy is in two fold, firstly whether the selection and appointment made in respect of the appellant in the year 2006 is in a substantive vacancy of the University and if so the appointment that has been made to the appellant whether can be treated as a permanent appointment and accordingly the appellant would be entitled to seek for permanency. Secondly, the appellant who did not have the qualification of NET/SLET at the time of selection in the year 2006 as prescribed by the University, since has acquired such qualification in 2012 and also acquired Ph.D. qualification in 2015 whether would be entitled to seek for permanency or regularisation atleast from 2012 is the second issue. As an ancillary issue, whether the treatment meted out by atleast 3 candidates who have been named by the appellant where there are some deviations by the University can be extended to the appellant. That in respect of one candidate, the exemption given to NET/SLET by other institutions was accepted by the University and in another candidate he had completed the U.G. degree through correspondence course and +2 examination through private study and in respect of the third candidate though he earned the P.G. qualification in law only through https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.A.Nos.3242, 3243, 3245 & 3246 of 2019 correspondence course by citing the reason that, he was selected in the year 2008 but the University prescription has come only in the year 2009, therefore his selection can be justified. The decisions taken by the University in respect of these three violations whether would be made applicable to the appellant also and she would be entitled to seek such a benefit of permanency from the date of original appointment in the year 2006 is an ancillary question. These are all the questions to be answered.

40. In respect of one candidate viz., one Dr.N.V.M.Rao is concerned, he did not have the qualification of either NET/SLET despite that he was appointed on the reason that the said Rao obtained the exemption from some other institution from having the NET/SLET qualification.

41. If some other institution had given the exemption, that need not be accepted by the University because they are very firm that the NET/ SLET qualification is essential.