Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. In W.P.No.7116 of 2010, and W.P.Nos.7580, 7759, 8034, 8037, 8077/2010 the petitioners/appellants prayed for a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from insisting on National Entrance Test/State Level Entrance Test (in short NET/SLET) qualification for candidates who have passed M.Phil prior to 1993 for being eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professors in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service, and consequently, direct the respondents to entertain the application of the petitioners for the post of Assistant Professor pursuant to the notice dated 29.03.2010 without imposing the condition of requirement of NET/SLET qualification.

5. In some of the writ petitions prayer was made for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to call for the records relating to the Governmental Orders in G.O.Ms.No.412, Higher Education (F2) Department dated 07.12.2009 and quash the same in so far as the said Governmental Order does not award 9 marks to the candidates who have completed only M.Phil degree and consequently direct the respondents to award 9 marks to the petitioners therein who have completed their M.Phil Degrees in the concerned subject prior to 1993 while processing their applications for the post of Assistant Professor.

(b) For SC/ST candidates and all physically handicapped candidates: Pass in Post Graduate Degree in the relevant subject with a minimum of 50% marks and a pass in the UGC/CSIR/JRF/NET/SLET /SLST in the relevant subject.

16. Aggrieved by the qualification fixed for the post of Assistant Professors and the removal of the exemption for pre 31.12.1993 M.Phil candidates from NET/SLET qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, the appellants/writ petitioners filed the above batch of writ petitions, which were ultimately dismissed by the learned single Judge. Hence, the present appeals.

20. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the last call notice issued by the Bharathiar University dated 16th June, 2009, calling for applications for SLET exam, wherein the exemption was given to the candidates, who have passed their M.Phil degree by 31st December, 1993 (or) who have submitted their Ph.D. thesis to a University on or before 31st December, 2002.

21. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that when the long standing exemption availed by the appellants was withdrawn, the appellants were not even given an opportunity to attempt the NET/SLET examination as no NET/SLET examination was conducted between 11th July, 2009 (date of amendment of the Minimum Qualification Regulations) and 29th March, 2010 (date of calling of applications by the Teachers Recruitment Board). Therefore in the process of withdrawing the exemptions, which was available to the appellants for a long period, the principles of fairness and equity have been completely compromised as a result of which the appellants have been deprived of the opportunity of applying for recruitment as Assistant Professor in Government Colleges. It was further submitted that though the appellants had a reasonable opportunity to appear in the examinations in June, 2006, they were led to believe that they were exempted from acquiring NET/SLET qualification. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that candidates who had completed M.Phil qualification by 1993, though they applied for the examination, their applications were returned by the Bharathiar University on account of the exemption provision as shown in the call notice. It was also submitted that while the exemption from NET/SLET qualification was founded on sound reason, the sudden withdrawal of exemption was done without any reason or logic as is evident from G.O. Ms. No.350 of the Higher Education Department. The grant of exemption from NET/SLET for persons who have passed M.Phil Degree prior to 1993 was based on the reason that prior to 1993, the curriculum mandated the candidates to complete two project papers, whereas after 1993, it was reduced to one project paper. The above reason for exemption was lost sight of by learned single Judge. It was also submitted that the exercise of administrative power should be based on valid and informed reasons and cannot be based on whims and caprices of the public authority. It was also submitted that merely because UGC has power to fix the minimum qualification for recruitment to Government Colleges, the earlier exemption from NET/SLET for candidates, who had passed M.Phil prior to 31st Dec., 1993, cannot be withdrawn without any rhyme or reason. The denial of the longstanding exemption has suddenly rendered the appellants ineligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professors in the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service. Thus, the arbitrary, sudden and unreasoned amendment to the UGC Minimum Qualification Regulations is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and against the doctrine of legitimate expectation.