The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of the Director of IIT-M was in accordance with the procedures laid down in the IIT Act, 1961, and the Rules and the Regulations.

S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

As common question is involved in all these Writ Appeals, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Questioning the authority of Dr.M.S.Ananth, to hold the post of the Director of the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (for short, the IIT-M), the first respondent-Dr.E.Muralidharan preferred Writ Petition No.37252 of 2007 for issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto.

3.The learned single Judge, having held the appointment illegal, the Writ Appeals have been preferred by Dr.M.S.Ananth, Director, IIT-M (Writ Appeal No.32 of 2009), Dr.Usha Titus, former Registrar, IIT-M, Director of Social Welfare Department, Government of Kerala, Kerala State Secretariat (Writ Appeal No.33 of 2009), Dr.A.E.Muthanayagam, Chairman, Board of Governors, IIT-M (Writ Appeal No.34 of 2009) and the Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delhi (Writ Appeal No.73 of 2009).

4. The only question involved in these cases is as to whether the appointment of Dr.M.S.Ananth as the Director of IIT-M, is in accordance with IIT Act, 1961 and the Rules and the Regulations and the statutes framed thereunder.

5. The learned single Judge held the appointment of Dr.M.S.Ananth as the Director of IIT-M, as illegal, mainly on three counts, namely:

.(i) The appointment is in violation of Section 17 of the IIT Act, 1961;

.(ii) Such appointment has been made without publishing any advertisement, calling for names, and thereby, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and

(iii) The appointment has not been made by the Full Council of the IIT-M.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, while referring to the IIT Act and the Rules and the Regulations and the statutes framed thereunder, submitted that opportunities having been given to all equally situated persons, failure of Government of India in not advertising the post of Director, would not offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such ground was never pleaded by the Writ Petitioner-Dr.E.Muralidharan and thereby, no specific reply was given with regard to such factual aspect.

7. Secondly, the procedure followed by the Ministry of Human Resources Development (for short, the HRD) of the Government of India, namely calling for the names of eminent persons from various sources, has been followed for the last 46 years while making appointment to such post of Director in the IIT-M and the said procedure having been followed in the present case, it cannot be held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or in violation of the provisions of the IIT Act, statutes and the Rules and the Regulations framed thereunder. The first respondent-writ petitioner, having not specifically challenged the established procedures for appointment of the Director of IIT-M, it is not open for the Court to annul the procedure.

8. The other ground taken on behalf of the appellants is with regard to the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge that the selection of Dr.M.S.Ananth, which was the foregone conclusion, it was submitted that the same was not borne out by records and was fully unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, and the Writ of Quo Warranto is also not maintainable in the present case.

9. The first respondent-writ petitioner-Dr.E.Muralidharan made similar plea as was made before the learned single Judge. It was mainly pleaded that the recommendation of the Full Council was not made in the instant case and thus, the appointment is illegal. According to him, Dr.M.S.Ananth was earlier appointed during the period 212. 2001 to 212. 2006 as Director of IIT and the present appointment was re-appointment to the said post. Such appointment has been made in violation of the IIT Councils Resolution, Section 17(1) of the IIT Act, 1961 and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He r