AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the
Respondents 2 and 3 to issue appointment order to the petitioner as Lecturer in the Department of Economics in the 3rd respondent college, by
passing orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 5.10.2009 submitted to the 1st and 2nd respondents. Further prayer has been made
not to approve the appointments of 4th and 5th respondents. The petitioner is an M.A., M. Phil. through Barathi Dhasan University at Trichy. The
petitioner was appointed as Full-Time Lecturer in the 3rd respondent college from 1993 to 2003. The petitioner was subsequently appointed as
Assistant Professor at Aringer Anna Institute of Management Studies and he also worked as Assistant Professor in Vel Ranga Sanku College,
Avadi. The petitioner at present is working as Office Assistant in Government High School, Vanathirayanpattinam, Ariyalur District.
The 3rd respondent advertised for the post of Lecturers in various subjects, including Economics. The qualification prescribed for appointment
was M.A. in Economics with M. Phil with 55% marks as per the UGC norms.
The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Economics. In the application, he pointed out his experience having worked as Lecturer in
Economics at A.M. Jain College, Assistant Professor in Aringer Anna Institute of Management Studies and Assistant Professor at Vel Ranga
Sanku College, Avadi.
The petitioner was called for preliminary interview on 8.7.2009. The case of petitioner is that he appeared before the 3rd respondent along with
necessary documents. Being satisfied with the performance of petitioner, he was directed to appear before the selection committee constituted as
per UGC guidelines for another interview on 25.09.2009. The name of petitioner, which was earlier wrongly printed, was corrected. The petitioner
appeared for interview on 25.09.2009, where he answered all the questions put up by the subject experts. The respondent no. 3, who was present
in the selection committee, did not ask any question.
The case of petitioner is that respondent no. 3 has selected the 4th and 5th respondents as Lecturers for the post of Lecturer in Economics,
though the petitioner has more experience than 4th and 5th respondents. Therefore, he was entitled to be appointed as Lecturer.
It is further case of petitioner, that the Government of Tamil Nadu has now issued G.O. Ms. No. 350 dated 9.9.2009, laying down guidelines
for entry level Assistant Professor, stating that the National Eligibility Test (NET) shall be compulsory. Out of 35 persons, who appeared for the
post of Lecturer in Economics, only 4 persons had the qualification of NET. The Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who did not have the qualification of
NET, were selected to the post of Lecturer in Economics. The petitioner therefore filed representation dated 5.10.2009 to the 1st respondent for
probing the matter and further requested not to approve the appointment of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that the petitioner is M.A., M. Phil., and has sufficient experience of having worked as
Lecturer, therefore was the better candidate than Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The selection committee, therefore, committed error in selecting
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, by ignoring the claim of petitioner.
This contention on the face of it is misconceived, as this Court cannot sit in appeal over the process of selection, as it was for the selection
committee to assess the merit of candidates, who appeared before selection committee for selection.
The second ground of challenge is that Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 do not possess qualification of NET, which is the mandatory requirement as
per the guidelines, therefore, the selection of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be sustained in law.
Counter has been filed, wherein positive stand of the respondents is, that 4th respondent holds the degree of Ph.D. and also NET, whereas 5th
respondent holds the degree of M. Phil and has been selected for UG subjects, where qualification of NET is not compulsory.
The stand of respondents is that selection has been made strictly in accordance with the recommendation of the selection committee.
On consideration, I find that the writ petition is devoid of any merit, firstly on the ground, that the writ petition as framed is not competent, as
the petitioner for the reasons best known, has not challenged the selection process, but only sought direction to the respondents not to approve the
appointment of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, as the respondents do not fulfill the requisite qualification for the post. This fact is denied in the counter,
where the stand taken is respondent no. 4 holds Ph.D. And NET for being appointed as Lecturer, whereas Respondent No. 5 has been appointed
for UG courses, as he holds the degree of M. Phil. Secondly, that the petitioner is better than Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, cannot be gone into, as
this Court cannot sit in appeal over the selection committee and cannot assess the merit of students, as it was to be done by the selection
committee.
It may be noticed here, that the writ petition otherwise also is not maintainable, as the petitioner on earlier occasion filed W.P. No. 20714 of
2009, seeking writ in the nature of prohibition, restraining Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from approving Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, which was
dismissed as withdrawn, without liberty to file fresh petition on the same cause of action.
The petitioner therefore has failed to make out any case for interference with the process of selection by the selection committee for
appointment of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
No merit. Dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.