SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Mad) 695

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.Sathasivam and S.R.Singharavelu, JJ.
Anna University represented by the Registrar, Anna University, Madras
Versus
S.Seshachari and others
W.A.No.146 of 1999
Decided On : 29 April 2004

Advocates:
M.P.Subbaya, for M/s.Row and Reddy, for Appellant.
R.Singaravelan, for Respondent No.1.

No malafide or bias alleged against the performance of selection committee.

Headnote:Service Law-Appointment of Assistant Registrars for Anna University-Seniority not the criterion for appointment on a selection post-Post of Registrar is a selection post-No error of procedure in selection done by Selection Committee.

P.Sathasivam, J.: Aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge dated 21.12.1998 made in W.P.No.8372 of 1991, quashing the impugned orders dated 28.04.1990 and 10.5.1991 and issuing direction to promote the writ petitioner - S. Shesachari as Assistant Registrar with effect from 28.4.1990, Anna University has filed the above writ appeal.

2. In the writ petition, the petitioner - first respondent herein challenged the proceedings of the University dated 28.4.1990 and 10.5.1991, appointing the second and third respondents as Assistant Registrars respectively; after praying for quashing of those orders, as a consequential relief, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the University to promote him to the post of Assistant Registrar with effect from 28.4.1990. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that the impugned orders are in violation of the Special Service Rules for the administrative posts, which prescribe qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar in the University. It is also his claim that the impugned orders are the out come of the unguided and unfettered powers being violative of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The experience, merit and ability of the writ petitioner were not considered and overlooked by the University.

3. The case of the appellant University is briefly stated hereunder:

The appellant University was established under the Anna University Act, 1978. On its formation, the first respondent herein, who was employed as Assistant in the Chemical Technology, Department of Technical Education, Madras was transferred to the University under Sec.6(2)(a)(ii) of the Act and having exercised his option to serve the University, he joined the University on 21.6.1980 as Assistant. The second respondent, who was working as Deputy Inspector in the Department of Local Fund Accounts was sent on deputation to the appellant University as Superintendent with effect from 7.7.1980 and absorbed as Superintendent in the University with effect from 7.7.1980. The first respondent was promoted to the post of Superintendent only on 14.8.1981, as such he was junior to the second respondent in the cadre of Superintendent. The post of Superintendent is a feeder category for the post of Assistant Registrar.

4. Under the Special Service Rules framed by the appellant University for the administrative post, the post of Assistant Registrar is a selection post. The selection is to be made from among the candidates who have completed seven years of service in the post of Superintendent, based on the merit and ability and seniority will be considered only if merit and ability are approximately equal. The selection has to be made by a Selection Committee constituted from time to time for the purpose.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 herein having completed the minimum period of service of seven years as Superintendent, were called for interview along with others on 16.9.1989 to fill up three existing vacancies of Assistant Registrar. In the interview, the Selection Committee, after considering merit and ability of the candidates, prepared a panel. The Selection Committee did not find the first respondent as fit for promotion. The recommendation of the said Selection Committee was duly approved by the Syndicate by its resolution dated 19.9.1989. The first respondent did not challenge the selection list or the resolution of the Syndicate approving the selection list.

6. Pursuant to the resolution, promotion orders were issued to the first three candidates in the panel to fill up the then existing vacancies. Subsequently the 4th candidate in the panel was also promoted in a vacancy that arose. In the meanwhile, there was a vacancy for the post of Liaison Officer in the University. As per the Special Service Rules, the post of Liaison Officer shall be filled up by promotion or with two years experience with degree or with adequate experience and knowledge in Court matters. Since the second respondent alone possessed the pr

















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top