Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
8. The fourth respondent is said to have given approval to the appointment of the third respondent with condition that the aid from the Government for the said post will be given only if the appointment is in accordance with regulations as prescribed by the fifth respondent and that the appointment is upheld by the Court. Therefore, the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in entertaining the application of the third respondent, selecting and appointing him as Associate Professor is illegal. According to the petitioner, apart from lacking in the minimum and essential qualifications, the third respondent is also lacking on merits on all aspects compared to the Accredited Performance Indicator (API) score and PBAS. Therefore, selecting a person who is lacking in minimum and essential qualification and also when he is less meritorious than the petitioner is malafide, unjust and unreasonable. The entire https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis selection process is arbitrary and colourable exercise of powers. Selecting and appointing the third respondent as Associate Professor in the Department of Tamil Studies in Foreign Countries when he is Assistant Professor in the first respondent University is no way connected to the subject pertaining to the Department of Tamil Studies in Foreign Countries overlooking the candidature of the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner is not only the only qualified person who attended the interview but is the most meritorious qualified person among the two candidates including the third respondent, would clearly establish such selection and appointment as extraneous consideration. When the notification specifically states that the person with the knowledge and expertise in World and Foreign Literature and Association with the Organizations who are working for the development of World Literature will be given preference, the respondents 1 and 2 ought to have granted preference to the petitioner in the selection process and hence, the appointment of the third respondent is illegal and it needs interference. Therefore, the petitioner prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The first and second respondents have filed a counter-affidavit stating that a circular was issued to Assistant Professors who are eligible for grade pay advancement under CAS scheme of UGC. The petitioner applied for the grade pay increase from Stage-II to Stage-III under CAS scheme. However, he has not enclosed the necessary documents/evidences with the application. As per the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee, he was informed to apply for the CAS scheme promotion with necessary documents/evidences. It is further stated that the qualifications for the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Tamil Studies in Foreign Countries is prescribed as per the UGC Regulations. A Scrutiny Committee was constituted to verify the Academic Performance Index (shortly known as API) Score and other required qualifications prescribed by the UGC. All the applications received for the post of Associate Professor were placed before the Scrutiny Committee. A Selection Committee was constituted for the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Tamil Studies in Foreign Countries. As per the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee, three persons including the petitioner and the third respondent were called for interview for the said post. The selection was made by the Selection Committee by considering the performance of the candidates https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and various norms prescribed by UGC. The Selection Committee recommended the third respondent for the post of Associate Professor and all the rules and regulations prescribed by UGC were followed in the above recruitment and there is no violation in this regard.
10. The third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the third respondent has graduated in Tamil in the year 1993 from Madras University and completed postgraduation in Tamil in the year 1996 from Annamalai University. In between, the third respondent has obtained Bachelor's Degree in Education in the year 1994 from Madras University. In the year 1997, he obtained M.Ed., from Madras University. For Bachelor Degree in Education, the third respondent chose Tamil as the subject. The third respondent was conferred with M.Phil. degree in the year 2000 and he perused research in Education under the topic “A study of the impact of modular approach on achievement, study habits and attitude of the students in Tamil grammar at Secondary Level” and conferred with Ph.D. in the year 2004. Though Ph.D. is in Education, the same is related to Tamil grammar. In the year 2007, the third respondent joined the first respondent University as Assistant Professor in the Department of Education and Management but with the condition that the third https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent would be placed in other centers as well. The third respondent continued as Assistant Professor for about 10 years without any blemish and was provided with Grade Pay on completion of the required number of years in the cadre of Assistant Professor. During his tenure as Assistant Professor for 10 years, the third respondent has published 10 books, 17 papers in authorized journals and other articles, completed 3 projects, attended many conferences on academic matters, presented 75 papers in seminars and has been invited for more than 30 conferences. The API score of the third respondent is 1903. With these qualifications and credentials, the third respondent is qualified for the post of Associate Professor.
18. The next contention put forth by the petitioner is the API score rate. It is seen from the records that the API score rate of the petitioner is 1395, whereas, the API score rate of the third respondent is 1903. Therefore, based on this also, the petitioner has not made out any case, since the third respondent is having more API score.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in B.Srinivasa Reddy Vs.Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association and others reported in 2006(11) SCC 731(1) has held that for the challenge under the Writ of Declaration or Writ of Quo Warranto, it is settled principle that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, in a matter of this nature is required to determine at the outset as to whether the case has been made out for issuance of Quo Warranto or Declaration and the jurisdiction is limited one which can be issued only when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.