IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the petitioner's right to challenge the legality of selection proceedings for the Director of IHRD and emphasized adherence to proper appointment procedures.

JUDGMENT :

N.NAGARESH, J.

The petitioner, who is working as Dean in the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, has filed W.P.(C) No.6809/2024 seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exts.P21 and P22 orders issued by the 1^st respondent;

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1^st respondent to remove the 6^th respondent from the additional charges of Director, IHRD, forthwith;

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1^st respondent to appoint the Director of IHRD, in terms with Ext.P18 special rules of IHRD and Exts.P15 and P19 notifications issued by the 4^th respondent AICTE, forthwith, at any rate within a time frame, as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

(iv) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the 6^th respondent has no minimum eligibility/qualification to hold the office of the 3^rd respondent and discharge the functions of the Director of IHRD;

(v) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1^st respondent to appoint any qualified Professor and Academician, in terms of Exts.P15 and P19 notifications issued by the AICTE and Ext.P18 Special Rules of IHRD, forthwith, until the Director of IHRD is appointed on regular basis.

2. The petitioner subsequently filed W.P.(C) No.14931/2024 seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P10 NOC issued by the 4^th respondent, to the extent raising adverse observations against the petitioner, behind his back, and without notice;

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to expunge the adverse observations made against the petitioner, in Ext.P10 NOC;

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to consider the competency and suitability of the petitioner, to the post of Director of the 3^rd respondent, in pursuance to Ext.P9 notification, untrammeled by the adverse observations made by the 6^th respondent, in his capacity as 4^th respondent, in Ext.P10 NOC;

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P11 representation, with notice to the petitioner, forthwith.

3. When these writ petitions came up for hearing today, the Government Pleader submitted that the selection proceedings for appointment to the post of Director in IHRD were carried forward but, no suitable person could be identified for appointment as Director. In view of the above, no more orders are required in these writ petitions.

4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has grievance against the selection proceedings now conducted and the petitioner may be granted liberty to challenge the said proceedings.

Recording the submission made by the Government Pleader and granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the selection proceedings, if the petitioner is so advised, the writ petitions are disposed of, leaving open all legal contentions raised by the petitioner.