Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 684
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN
Dr.S.Arulmani - Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu rep., by its Secretary & Others - Respondents
W.P.No.17630 of 2005 & W.P.M.P.Nos.19894 & 19151 of 2005 & W.V.M.P.Nos.1189 and 2080 of 2005
Decided On : 10 March 2006
The judgment establishes the principle that G.O.Ms.No.111 had statutory backing and was binding on the college, and the college committee had no power to select a candidate for the post of Principal not in accordance with UGC regulations.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Appointment of Principal - G.O.Ms.No.111(Hr.Edn.Dept) dated 24.3.1999, University Grants Commission Act, 1956, Tamil Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation) Act 1976, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act - The judgment discusses the statutory backing of G.O.Ms.No.111, the power of the college committee to select a candidate, transparency in the selection process, and the prematurity of the Writ Petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Reader and Head of the Department of Tamil, challenged the appointment of the 6th respondent as Principal of Kamaraj College, citing non-compliance with UGC regulations and lack of transparency in the selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the G.O.Ms.No.111 had statutory backing and was binding on the college. It held that the college committee had no power to select a candidate for the post of Principal not in accordance with UGC regulations. The court also noted the absence of reasons for selecting the 6th respondent and rejected the argument that the Writ Petition was premature.
Issues: 1) Statutory backing of G.O.Ms.No.111 2) Power of the college committee to select a candidate for the post of Principal 3) Transparency in the selection process 4) Prematurity of the Writ Petition
Ratio Decidendi: The G.O.Ms.No.111 had statutory backing and was binding on the college. The college committee had no power to select a candidate for the post of Principal not in accordance with UGC regulations. The absence of reasons for selecting the 6th respondent rendered the appointment unsustainable. The Writ Petition was not premature.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the Writ Petition was allowed. The 5th respondent college was at liberty to select a candidate to the post of Principal by the duly constituted committee in accordance with the regulations.
(Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 5th respondent pertaining to Ref:31/2005 dated 21.4.2005 and quash the same and direct the 5th respondent to promote the petitioner as Principal.)
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 Collegeâ€).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.
2. 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:
1. Thiru V. Ilango - President
2. Dr. T. Rajasekaran - Vice-President
3. Thiru V. Kanagavel - Secretary
4. Thiru M. Rajamani - Joint Secretary
5. Prof. M. Ganesan - Principal
6. Prof. S. Murugaraj - University representative
7. Prof. P. Chelliah - Staff representative
8. Prof. S. Stephen Dharmaraj - Staff representative
9. Thiru S. Arumuga-Perumal - Staff representative
3. 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.
4. In challenging the above proceedings, Mr. R. Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted the following:
1)In exercise of power under Section 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 under Section 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 Governmen
