Dr. S. Arulmani vs Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

D. Murugesan, J.—The petitioner is working as Reader and Head of the Department of Tamil in Kamaraj College, Thoothukudi, which is

aided non minority educational institution( hereinafter called"" The College"").As the post of Principal(Gr.I) became vacant on 1.06.2005, the college

issued a circular dated 21.3.2005 inviting applications from the eligible Selection Grade Lecturers/Readers with Ph.D. and the said circular reads

as under:

Ref:31/2005 Circular 21.3.2005

Sub: Appointment as Principal-Applications called

For-regarding.

Ref: G.O.Ms. No. 111( Hr.Edn.Dept)dated 24.3.1999. Applications are invited from the eligible Selection Grade Lecturers/Readers of our

College with Ph.D., for appointment as Principal in our college Applications in duplicate along with Bio-data and Xerox copies of

certificates/testimonials must be addressed to the Secretary and routed through the Principal, Kamaraj College. The applicants are also requested

to submit a brief note on their visions on the future developments of Kamaraj college for the next 10 years period.

Eligibility for Principal (Gr.I) i.A master''s degree with atleast 55% of marks or its equivalent Grade B in the seven point scale.

ii.Ph.D., or equivalent qualification,

iii.A minimum total experience of 15 years of Teaching/Research in Universities/Colleges and other institutions of Higher Education. The last date

for receiving applications in Our Principal''s office is 31.3.2005.

Nine candidates applied for the said post and the College prepared a list of seniority in which the petitioner was shown as the senior most. The

6th respondent by name Dr.J. Mohanraj was shown as 5th in the seniority. The college committee which interviewed the candidates consisted of

the following members:

Thiru V. Ilango .... President

Dr. T.Rajasekaran .... Vice-President

Thiru V. Kanagavel .... Secretary

Thiru M. Rajamani .... Joint Secretary

Prof.M.Ganesan .... Principal

Prof.S. Murugaraj .... University representative

Prof.P.Chelliah .... staff representative

Prof.S. Stephen Dharmaraj .... Staff representative

Thiru S. Arumuga- perumal .... Staff representative

In its meeting held on 21.4.2005 the college committee resolved to appoint Dr.J.Mohanraj, the 6th respondent herein as Principal with effect

from 1.6.2005. However, the University representative had made dissent note for the appointment. Pursuant to the resolution of the college

committee, the 6th respondent was issued with order of appointment on the same day.

In challenging the above proceedings, Mr.R.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted the following:

1)In exercise of power u/s 12 and 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956,regulations were framed prescribing educational

qualifications for the post of Principals in Colleges as well the constitution of Committee to select the candidate for that post. The said regulation

have statutory force u/s 28 of the Act and therefore, they are applicable and binding on the College. On the basis of the recommendations of the

UGC, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued G.O.Ms. No. 111 Higher Education (H1) Department dated 24.3.1999 prescribing the

educational qualifications for the post of Principal and the constitution of the committee. The above Government order had been adopted by the

University and consequently binding on the college. This would be evident from the circular itself wherein a reference has been made to the said

Government Order and the college has to strictly follow the directions contained therein not only regarding qualification of the candidates but also

in constituting the selection committee in accordance with the said Government Order. As the constitution of the committee, namely ""The College

Committee"" is not in accordance with the Government Order, the entire selection process is vitiated and consequently, the appointment of the 6th

respondent is illegal.

2) In any event,the selection and appointment of the 6th respondent is unsustainable as there is no transparency in the process of selection.

Inasmuch as the petitioner was shown as the senior most person in the seniority list, no reason is given in the resolution to overlook the petitioner

and consequently, prefer and select the 6th respondent as Principal. The resolution of the college committee is silent on this aspect and in the

absence of disclosure of reasons, the selection of the 6th respondent is unsustainable.

In reply to the above submissions, Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing for the 5th respondent college had submitted the

following:

a. The recommendations of the UGC in respect of the constitution of the Committee to select the candidate for that post of Principal is not binding

on the college as they are only recommendatory in nature. Further, the learned senior counsel submitted that those recommendations were made

only for the purpose of revision of pay scales of college and University teachers and other staffs of the college and Universities. In the

circumstances, the Government Order dated relating to the constitution of the committee is not applicable to the college. The Government of Tamil

Nadu considered those recommendations and decided to implement the revised scales of pay in exercise of power under Article 162 of the

Constitution of India. Inasmuch as the said order is only an executive order, it cannot have overriding effect on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu

Private Colleges (Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ""The College Act"" and the Mamonmaniyam Sundaranar University Act

(hereinafter referred to as ""The University Act). Section 14(b) of the said Act empowers the college committee constituted in accordance with

Section 11 of the Act read with Rule 8 of the Rules to appoint teachers and other staffs in the college. As per Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private

Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976, educational agency of every college, other than the minority college shall constitute a college committee and the

committee constituted in accordance with the said Rule, has the power to select the candidates. The college committee is empowered and well

within the power to select and appoint a candidate of it choice, however, subject to the educational qualifications and other eligibility norms

prescribed by the UGC. The learned senior counsel would therefore submit that 6th respondent is eligible and fully qualified and his selection and

appointment by the college committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of the "" the College Act"" and Rules made thereunder is valid

and in accordance with law.

b) He would also submit that Section 15 of ""the University Act"", empowers the University to make regulations, statutes or ordinances specifying

the qualifications required for the appointment of teachers and other persons employed in private colleges. Chapter XVII of the statute of the

University prescribes the educational qualification as well the constitution of the committee and the selection of a candidate made by such

committee in respect of the candidate who has possessed the qualification prescribed thereunder is valid.

c) He would further submit that the college committee, having satisfied with the qualification and merit and ability and being an expert body in

academic field, resolved to select the 6th respondent and such decision cannot be the subject matter of review by this Court.

d) He would further submit that in any case, the selection of the 6th respondent requires approval from the University. So far the University has not

considered the appointment of the 6th respondent for approval and therefore, the Writ Petition is premature and consequently, it is liable to be

dismissed.

I have given my careful considerations to the respective submissions. The following question arises for consideration:

1) Whether G.O.Ms. No. 111 Higher Education (H1) dated 24.3.1999 have statutory backing of ""the Central enactment"" made in exercise of the

power under Entry 66 of Union List of VII Schedule and is binding on the college?

(2) Whether the power of the college committee to select a candidate for the post of Principal could be traced to the the provisions of the Tamil

Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation) Act and the Rules made thereunder as well as the provisions of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act

made in exercise of power under Entry 25 of the concurrent list of the VIIth schedule?

3) Whether selection of 6th respondent is liable to be set aside on the ground that there was no transparency in selection process?

4) Whether Writ Petition is premature?

Points 1 and 2: Entry 66 of Union List Schedule VII of the Constitution of India read as follows: Coordination and determination of standards in

institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions:

The Parliament is vested with exclusive authority to enact law in regard to ""co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher

education or research and scientific and technical institutions. Considering the growth of number of Universities, it was felt that constitution of

commission was necessitated not only for determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical

institutions but also to allocate and disburse grants. The University Grants Commission Act is essentially intended to make provisions for the

Coordination and determination of Standards in Universities. It is Intra vires and is covered under Entry 66 of List I of VIIth Schedule. The scope

and power of the University Grants Commission came up for consideration before the Apex Court in University Grants Commission Etc. v.

Sadhana Chaudhary and Ors. Etc. JT 1996 8 SC 234 and in para 10 it is observed as follows:

The requirement regarding clearing the eligibility test for appointment on the post of Lecturer as prescribed by the UGC under the 1991

Regulations came up for consideration before this Court in University of Delhi Vs. Raj Singh and others, . After taking note of the report of the

National Commission on Teachers II, the Mehrotra Committee report and the recommendations of the vice-Chancellors'' conference held in 1989,

the Court has observed:-

It is very important to note that a duty is cast upon the Commission(the UGC) to take ''all such steps as it may think fit for the determination and

maintenance of standards of teaching''. These are very wide ranging powers. Such powers, in our view, would comprehend the power to require

whose who possess the educa- tional qualifications required for hold- ing the post of lecturer in Universities and colleges to appear for a written

test, the passing of which would establish that they possess the minimal proficiency for holding such post. The need for such test is demonstrated

by the reports of the commissions and committees of edu- cationists referred to above which take note of the disparities in the standards of

education in the various Universities in the country. It is patent that the holder of a postgraduate degree from one University is not necessarily of the

same standard as the holder of the same postgraduate degree from another University That is the rationale of the test prescribed by the said

Regulations

Going through the scheme of the Act, it is apparent that the commission will have the power to recommend to any University the measures

necessary for reform and improvement of University education and to advise the University concern upon the action to be taken for the purpose of

implementing such recommendation. It will act as an expert body also to advise the Central Government on problems connected with co-

ordination of facilities and maintenance of standards in Universities. The functions of the commission established u/s 4 of the Act are enumerated

u/s 12 of the Act.

In terms of Section 12(d) the Commission could recommend to any University the measures necessary for the improvement of University

Education and advise the University upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation. Insofar as the standard of

teaching and examinations in the University recognized by the Commission, such University may be required by the Commission to furnish it with

such information as may be needed relating to financial position of the University or the studies in the various branches of learning undertaken in

that University, together with all the rules and regulations relating to the standards of teaching and examination in that University in respect of each

of such branches of learning in terms of Section 12(i) of the Act.

The Commission is also empowered to make regulations u/s 26 which are inconsistent with the Act as well the rules made u/s 25. Section

26(1)(e) relates to the power of the commission to make regulations specifying the terms and conditions of the service of the teachers, defining the

qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University having regard to branches of

education in which he is expected to give instructions.

In view of the fact that the University is recognized by UGC, the regulations framed by UGC is binding on the University. The question as to

whether the UGC Act has enacted only for the purpose of making grants to various institutions governed by it came up for consideration before the

Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Bharati Vidyapeeth [Deemed University] and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, and in

para 24 of the judgment the Supreme Court has held as follows:

Learned counsel appearing for the States very strenuously urged that the UGC Act is only for the purpose of making grants to various institutions

governed by it and it was not an authority which would create a University and give a special status to it so as to keep it out of the control of the

University or the State where it is located. This argument ignores the provisions of the enactment and particularly those to which we have adverted

to just now, for such insti- tutions are recognised or granted deemed status for the maintenance of the standards in the institutions and for

coordinating the teaching in universities which is a higher purpose than merely giving grants and with that object, the enactment is made. We do not

think it could be confined only to making of grants as has been contended by the respondents. This arguments therefore, needs to be rejected.

Though the said judgment arose in respect of deemed universities, the law laid down by the Supreme Court is more fully applicable to the

University recognized by UGC and the colleges affiliated to such Universities.

Insofar as the prescription of the minimum educational qualification, the UGC vests with the power u/s 26(1)(e) to make regulations. To this

extent, there cannot be any dispute as to the minimum educational qualification and the eligibility fixed by the UGC to be equally adopted and

implemented by the University.

In exercise of such power, the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for appointment and career Advancement of

Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter called ""The Regulations"" ) was enacted. Clause 1.1.0 and

1.2.0 relating to the educational qualifications for the post of Principal which are as follows:

1.1.0Principal (Professor''s Grade)

1)A Master''s Degree with atleast 55% of Marks or it equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grade O,A,B,C D,E and F.

2)Ph.D. or equivalent qualification;

3)Total experience of 15 years of teaching/ Research in Universities/colleges and other Institutions of higher eduction.

1.2.0Principal (Reader''s Grade)

1)A Master''s degree with atleast 55% of the Marks or its equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O,A,B,C, D,E and F

2)Ph.D. or equivalent qualification;

3)Total experience of 10 years of teaching/ Research in Universities/Colleges and other Institutions of higher education.

In the same regulations, the Constitution of selection committee for the post of principal is also prescribed in 3.5.0. which is as follows:

1)Chairperson of the Governing Board as Chairperson;

2)One member of the Governing Board to be Nominated by the Chairperson

3)Two Vice-Chancellor''s nominees, out of Whom one should be an expert;

4)Three experts consisting of the Principal of a college, a Professor and an accomplished educationist not below the rank of a professor ( to be

nominated by the Governing Board) out of a panel of experts approved by the Vice-Chancellor.

The Tamil Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation) Act 1976 and Mamonmaniyam Sundaranar University Act, 1990 were enacted by the State

Government in exercise of the power under Entry 25 of Schedule VII of the Concurrent List. In terms of Section 11 aided non-minority college

shall form a Committee. Section 14(1)(b) relates to the power of the college committee to appoint teachers and other staffs. Constitution of the

college committee is prescribed under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation) Rules, 1976. The petitioner has questioned the

selection of the 6th respondent for the post of Principal on the ground that the selection committee namely, the college committee which

interviewed the candidate was not in accordance with the committee prescribed under UGC regulations. In this context, it must be seen as to

whether the UGC is empowered not only to prescribe the educational qualification for teachers but also prescribe the constitution of committee to

interview the candidate.

It appears that the Government of India constituted Rasthogi Committee to recommend the revision of pay scales of College and University

Teachers and other officers of Colleges and Universities. Certain recommendations were made by the Committee and the same were accepted by

UGC. The Government of India also accepted the recommendations of the UGC and decided to implement the revision of pay scales. The

Government of India also agreed to provide financial assistance to the State Governments for implementing the revised scales subject to certain

conditions. This is obvious from the first para of the Government Order Ms. No. 111 dated 24.3.1999.

The Rasthogi Committee appointed by the Government of India recommended revision of Pay scales of college and University Teachers and other

Officers of Colleges and Universities which was accepted by the University Grants Commission. The Government of India decided to accept the

recommendations of the University Grants Commission and implement the revision of Pay with effect from 1st January,1996. The Government of

India have agreed to provide financial assistance to the State Governments for implementing the revised pay scales subject to the following

conditions

On a careful consideration, the Government of Tamil Nadu also decided to implement the revision of pay scale. The decision of the State

Government in para 2 of the Order states as follows:

The Government after careful consideration of the scheme have decided to implement the revised scales of pay as recommended by the

Government of India with effect from 1st January,1996

The Government infact ordered the coverage of the scheme as on 1st January,1996 relating to Pay Scales, Dearness Allowance and other

benefits, counting of past service, payment of arrears, recruitment and qualification. Insofar as the qualifications are concerned, the Government

directed that ""Direct recruitment to the post of Lecturers/Principals shall be in accordance with the UGC guidelines given in Annexure II. It also

ordered the conditions for the implementation relating to probation and confirmation, Incentives for Ph.D.,/M.Phil, career advancement scheme

and age of superannuation.

Insofar as the qualification for the post of Principal, the Government directed the same educational qualifications as well the constitution of

committee for selecting the candidate prescribed under regulation 1.1.0 and 1.2.0 and 3.5.0.

Coming to the Manonmaiam Sundaranar Act, Section 43 relates to the condition of service of officers, teachers and other persons employed in

the University, particularly relating to appointment procedure for selection and pay and allowances.

Chapter XVIII of the Statute of the University, relates to service conditions of the establishment. Statute 2 relates to the kinds of appointment

and the applicability of the Statutes. It refers only to the teachers and other persons employed in the University. Statute 3 relates to classification of

service. Stature 4 relates to creation of non-teaching posts, the mode of Recruitment, reservation, criteria for promotion, selection committee,

qualification, age etc.,

Appendix I relates to method of recruitment and qualifications prescribed for various teaching and non-teaching posts in the University. Though

qualification is prescribed for Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Registrar and Controller of Examinations, no qualification is prescribed for the Post of

Principal. Even for the post of Professors, the University has adopted only UGC norms.

Appendix II relates only to the qualification for non-teaching posts. A perusal of Section 43 read with Appendix I and II shows that they relate

only to teaching and non-teaching staff employed in the University and not the colleges affiliated to the University.

The University has not provided any minimum educational qualification for the post of Principal and also the constitution of the committee

apparently on the ground that they have been prescribed by the regulations framed by UGC. Hence, reliance placed by the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent on the provisions of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act cannot be accepted.

Coming to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation) Act, u/s 11, an aided non-minority institution shall form a college

committee. The function of the college is enumerated u/s 14(b) of the Act. Section 14(1)(b) of the Act contemplates the functions of the college

committee as well the responsibility of the educational agency to appoint teachers and other staffs which selecting the candidates, the College shall

follow the norms relating to the eligibility and qualifications prescribed by UGC.

It is the case of the 5th respondent that the college committee was constituted in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules which interviewed the

candidates for the post of Principal. It is also the case of the 5th respondent that Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act,1976 was enacted

by Parliament under Article 357(1)(a) of Constitution of India and consequently, it was made in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 of

the Tamil Nadu State Legislation (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1976. The source of power is traceable to Entry 25 List III of Schedule VII. Hence

the college committee vests with the power to select and appoint the candidates.

A combined reading of Section11 and 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation) Act and Rules shows that they are not inconsistent

with Sections 12 and 26(e) of the UGC Act and they operate in different field. Sections 11 and 14(b) and Rule 8 empowers the College

Committee to make appointment. The power of the College Committee to make appointment to the teaching post as contemplated u/s 14(b) of the

Act cannot be extended to constitute a selection committee to select the candidate as the power is conferred on UGC. Section 12 read with 26(e)

relates to the power of UGC to prescribe qualification of candidate to be appointed as teachers. In the event, the UGC makes regulations

prescribing qualification, the same shall be binding on the University and the colleges affiliated to such University.

In this context, it is to be seen that the UGC has made the ""University Grants Commission (minimum qualifications required for the appointment

and career advancement of teachers in Universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations,2000. There is no dispute that the said regulation was

adopted by Manonmaniam Sundaranar University on 1.11.2000 and the regulations were accepted on 4.11.2000.

The constitution of selection committee is referable to regulation 3.5.0 of the UGC Regulations. The very same regulation relating to the

constitution of the committee is reproduced in the impugned order. Though the Government Order was issued in exercise of power under Article

162 for the purpose of extending the benefit of revision of pay scales, insofar as the qualification for the post of principal and constitution of

committee was incorporated in the said order as per the statutory regulations of the UGC. Regulations made u/s 26 of the Act has statutory force.

The Apex Court in the judgment reported in University of Delhi Vs. Raj Singh and others, has held that UHC was the competent authority to

prescribe the educational qualifications that are ordinarily required to the post of a Lecturer including the principal and such regulations shall

statutory force.

So far as the educational qualification prescribed by regulations framed by UGC, there cannot be any dispute that the college should abide by

the minimum qualification while selecting the candidate for the post of Principal. In fact, in the impugned order, the eligibility norms notified by the

College is in tune with the minimum educational qualifications prescribed in the regulations framed by UGC.

The question still considered is as to whether the power of UGC to make regulations u/s 26(e) of the Act could be extended even prescribing

the constitution of a committee for selecting the candidates for the post of principal. Entry 66 relates not only to for coordination but also

determination of the standards in higher education. Determination of standards in higher education includes maintaining the excellence in the college.

The post of Principal is pivotal importance in the educational institution. In maintaining the standard vis-�-vis the appointment of Principal it

would be relevant to point out the role of the Heads of the educational institution as observed by the Apex Court as well the High Court.

In Aldo Maria Patroni v. E.C. Kesavan 1964 KLT 791 the Full Bench of Kerala High Court has held as follows:

The post of the Headmaster is a pivotal importance in the life of a school. Around him wheels the tone and temper of the institution; on him

depends the continuity of its traditions; the main- tenance of discipline and the efficiency of its teaching. The right to choose the headmaster is

perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer a school, and we must hold that the imposition of any trammel thereon-except to the

extent of prescribing the requisite qualifications and experience cannot but be considered as a violation of the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of

the Constitution. To hold otherwise will be to make the right ""a teasing illusion"" a promise of unreality

The Nine Judge Bench in the Ahamedabad St. Xavier''s college Society 1971 SCC717 has held as follows:

It is upon the principal and teachers of a College that tone and temper of an educa- tional institution depend. On them would depend its reputation,

the maintenance of discipline and its efficiency in teaching The right to choose the principal and to have the teaching conducted by teachers

appointed by the management after an overall assessment of their outlook and philosophy is perhaps the most important facet of the right to

administer an educational institution

In The Gandhi Faiz-E-Am College, Shahjahanpur Vs. University of Agra and Another, the Apex Court has held as follows:

An activist principal is an asset in discharging these duties which are inextri- cably interlaced with academic functions. The principal is an invaluable

insider-the Management''s own choice-not an outsider answerable to the Vice-chancellor. He brings into the work of the Managing committee that

intimate acquaintance with educational operations and that necessary expression of student-teacher aspirations and complaints which are so

essential for the minority institution to achieve a happy marriage between individuality and excellence

In N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School and Ors. 1999 2 LW 52 the Apex Court has held as follows:

Selection and appointment of Headmaster in a school (or principal of a college) are prime importance in administration of that educational

institution. The Headmaster is the key post in the running of the school. He is the hub on which all the spokes of the school are set around whom

they rotate to generate result. A school is personified through its Headmaster and he is the focal point on which outsiders look at the school. A bad

Headmaster can spoil the entire insti- tution, an efficient and honest Headmaster can improve it by leaps and bounds. The functional efficacy of a

school very much depends upon the efficiency and dedication of its Headmaster. This pristine precept remains unchanged despite many changes

taking place in the structural patterns of education over the years.

The above emphasis made by the Apex Court as well the Full Bench of Kerala High Court as to the appointment not only the Headmaster and

the Principal of colleges but also the teachers in educational institutions, only by taking into consideration of the interest of students for a better

education. Such appointment has relevance to the standard in the educational institution. The provisions of Section 26 of UGC Act empower the

Commissions to make regulations not only prescribing the minimum qualification for the post of Principal but as well the constitution of the

committee for selecting the person from among the teachers appeared for the interview. Mere insistence on educational qualification may not serve

purpose as the appointment of the post of Principal has to be made according to merit and ability which will be tested or decided by the committee

properly constituted in accordance with the regulations framed by UGC.

Of course, an aided non-minority educational institution have a college committee to appoint teachers. The power for the college committee to

appoint teachers cannot be disputed. However, such power should be exercised in the manner prescribed under regulations of the UGC. When

once the college is bound to adopt the minimum educational qualifications prescribed in the regulation framed by UGC, it is equally bound to make

selection through properly constituted committee as per the said regulation. The constitution of the selection committee prescribed in Regulation

3.5.0 consists of the Chairperson of the Governing Board as Chairperson, one member of the Governing Board to be nominated by the

Chairperson, two Vice-Chancellor''s nominees and three experts consisting of the Principal of a College, a Professor and an accomplished

educationist. The majority of the members of the Selection Committee is from the College Committee except in the place of two nominees of the

Vice-Chancellor, only one University representative figures as Member in the College Committee. That apart, out of three experts, the

representative from the accomplished educationist not below the rank of a Professor to be nominated by the Board out of a panel of experts

approved by the Vice-Chancellor. It is not so in the College Committee. The above committee is only to ensure the maintenance of the standard in

the education as the standard of education to students shall depend upon the appointment of a qualified person. Only in this context, the Committee

constituted by UGC is insisted to select the candidate. In order to consider the appointment, the college committee has to necessarily depend upon

the recommendations of the committee constituted in accordance with the regulations. To this extent the power of the college committee cannot be

extended even for selecting candidates ignoring the regulations of the UGC in regard to composition of selection committee. That apart When once

the regulations are adopted by the University, the 5th respondent college affiliated to the University is bound to follow the regulations. In this

context, the constitution of the committee to select the post of Principal should be only in accordance with the conditions prescribed under the

regulation of UGC. There is no dispute that the committee which interviewed and selected the 6th respondent for the post of Principal was not in

conformity with the composition of the committee prescribed in UGC Act and to this extent, the selection of the 6th respondent cannot be held to

be valid.

In view of the finding that G.O.Ms. No. 111 dated 24.3.1999 prescribing educational qualification and the constitution of committee was

issued only in accordance with the regulations framed by UGC, the impugned order though issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of Indian,

inasmuch as it reproduces the minimum educational qualifications and the constitution of the selection committee as per the Regulations, it cannot

be said that it is not binding on the college. Hence, Point No. 1 is answered by holding that the said Government Order have statutory backing of

the Central Enactment and consequently, is binding on the college.

In view of the above finding, Point No. 2 is also answered by holding that the college committee has no power to select a candidate for the

post of Principal or constitute a separate selection committee which is not in accordance with Regulations of UGC for the said purpose as no such

power is conferred under both the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation) Act and the Rules made thereunder as well the provisions of

Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent would rely upon the judgment reported in The Association of Managements Private

Colleges Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and another, . In my considered opinion, UGC regulations prescribing the minimum educational

qualifications for the post of Principal and the composition of selection committee to select a candidate were not brought to the notice of this Court

and the judgment was rendered on the ground that the said Government Order was issued in exercise of the power under Article 162 of the

Constitution of India and without reference to the fact that it was issued on the basis of the regulations. Therefore, the said decision cannot be

pressed into service.

Point No. 3: It is not a Rule that the Selection Committee need to pass a detailed order with cogent reasons to arrive its conclusion to select a

candidate. Nevertheless, the Selection Committee must indicate a gist of conclusions in the order based on records. It would be fair and

reasonable to describe the comparative merits. By such procedure, the Selection Committee could avoid a reasonable apprehension in the mind of

unsuccessful candidates that their merits have been overlooked without any reason. In this regard, the following judgment of a Division Bench of

this Court is referable. D. Jeyaselvi Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, . A perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no

disclosure of any reason as to why the 6th respondent was preferred especially when the petitioner is senior to the 6th respondent. In the absence

of such reasons, the impugned order is unsustainable.

Point No. 4:- Mr.Vijay Narayan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 5th respondent would however submit that the selection and

appointment of the 6th respondent is yet to be approved by the University and the Writ Petition is premature. I am not inclined to accept the said

submission as in the event this Court comes to the conclusion that the very selection and appointment is against regulations of the UGC, the Writ

Petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that it is premature. In the event, the order of selection and appointment is found to be illegal and in

contravention of the regulations the proposal should be necessarily rejected and no approval could be granted. In that view of the matter, merely

because the selection and appointment is yet to be approved by the University, the petitioner should not be prevented from approaching this Court

questioning the very basis of the process of selection.

For the above reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. However, the 5th respondent college is at liberty to

select a candidate to the post of Principal by the duly constituted committee in accordance with the regulations. No costs. Consequently, all

connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.