Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
Dr. R. Sakthivel & Another
Versus
The Syndicate, Rep by its Vice Chancellor/Chairman, Bharathidasan University, Trichy-24 & Others
W.P.(MD). No. 572 of 2013, W.P.(MD). Nos. 15185 and 15186 of 2012
Decided on: 25-09-2014
1. In W.P.No.15185 of 2012, the petitioner, Dr.K.Sakthivel, has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the Notification issued by Bharathidasan University, in No.35036/H2/2012, dated 22.08.2012, in so far it has reserved the post of Associate Processor in the Department of Remote Sensing for SC-A, quash the specialisation prescribed for the post of Associate Professor in the Department Remote Sensing “Applied Geophysics for Seismotectonics, Neotectonics, Mineral and Hydrocarbon Exploration, Seismic Methods, Reservoir Geophysics, basin Modelling” and consequently, direct the respondent-University to invite fresh advertisement, for the post of Associate Professor, strictly in accordance with the reservation envisaged under the Tamilnadu Act 4 of 2009.
2. In W.P.15186 of 2012, the petitioner, Dr.S.Ravivarman, has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the same Notification, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent university to invite fresh advertisement for the post of Associate Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor strictly in accordance with the reservation envisaged under the Tamilnadu Act 4 of 2009.
3. In W.P.No.573 of 2013, the petitioner, Dr.K.Sakthivel, has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the Minutes of the Syndicate Meeting of the 1st respondent, dated 22.12.2012 (signed on 29.12.2012), quash the same, insofar as it has approved the appointment of 3rd respondent, as Associate Professor in Remote Sensing and consequently, direct the respondents to hold selection afresh for the post of Associate Professor in Remote Sensing by prescribing the correct qualification and consider the petitioner and other eligible candidates.
4. In all the three writ petitions, pleadings and submissions are one and the same and therefore, they are disposed of, by a common order.
5. Both Dr.R.Sakthivel (petitioner in W.P.No.15185 of 2012 and W.P.No.572 of 2013) and Dr.S.Ravi Varman (petitioner in W.P.No.15186 of 2012) belong to Scheduled Caste community. Dr.R.Sakthivel has completed M.Sc in Applied Geology and later on, completed Ph.D in Remote Sensing. He has also completed Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application. He has joined the Respondent-University as a Junior Research Fellow in the year 1999 and working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Remote Sensing. He has successfully completed National Eligibility Test.
6. Dr.S.Ravi Varman (petitioner in W.P.No.15186 of 2012) is a Post-Graduate in M.A., and completed M.Ed., in Education Technology. He has also completed Ph.D., in Education. Vide Notification, dated 22.08.2012, the Respondent-University has invited applications for filling up the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in different departments. He has applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Education Technology. He has submitted that reservation has been made for Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyars), instead of Scheduled Caste.
7. Both of them have submitted that object and reasons behind the promulgation of Act 4 of 2009, is that it has been decided to provide for reservation for Arunthathiyar within reservation provided for Scheduled Caste. Accordingly, in terms of Section 3 of the Act, out of the percentage reserved for the Scheduled Caste, 16% is kept apart for Arunthathiyars. In other words, in terms of the reservation policy followed in Government of Tamil Nadu, out of 18% reserved for Scheduled Caste, approximately 1/6th of 18, viz., 3% is intended for Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyars)
8. According to the petitioners, perusal of the advertisement shows that in respect of various departments, though several posts for Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyars) have been called for, not even one post is earmarked for Scheduled Caste (General). Therefore, they have submitted that the University has acted in total contravention of the provisions of the Act 4 of 2009, read with G.O.Ms.No.61, dated 27.05.2009, whic
Addl. Distt. Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla
Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others v. Shakuntala Shukla and Others; 2002 (6) SCC 127
D.Ganesan v. State of Tamil Nadu; 2012 (2) CTC 177
J.M.Jacqueline Maley v. Union of India; 2009 (7) MLJ 749
Jeevarathinam v. Government of Tamil Nadu; 2008 (7) MLJ 1074
Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors.
Moorgate Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. Twitching. (1977) AC 890 (H.L.)]
Madanlal v. State of J & K; AIR 1995 SC 1088
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sangam Nath Panday; 2011 (2) SCC 105
Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh; 2008 (4) SCC 619
Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshambhai v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Others; [2007 (7) SUPREME 438]
Union of India thr. Govt. of Pondicherry & Anr. v. V.Ramakrishnan & Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 394
University of Cochin v. N.S.Kanjoonjamma & Others; 1997 (4) SCC 426
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.