2015 Supreme(Mad) 26

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.M. SUNDRESH, J.

Dr.K.R.S.Girija Shyamsundar & Others
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai & Others
W.P.No. 13726 of 2014 & M.P.Nos. 1, 2 & 7 of 2014
Decided on: 07-01-2015

Headnote:

Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 - Section 16(1) - Urban Buildings Act, 1972 - Section 21(2) - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act - Section 88 - Haryana Service of Engineers Rules, 1960 - Rule 5(2)(a) - Andhra Pradesh Markets Rules, 1969 - Rule 74(1) - Colleges with Potential for Excellence - Qualifications for appointment of Teachers - Power of judicial review – Acquisition of land - Fifth respondent has issued a Circular calling for applications for post of - Petitioner and seventh respondent who were also applicants of above were called for interview having secured Academic Performance Indicators Scores API scores in short - As against petitioners seventh respondent was selected and appointed as Principal - Challenging said decision made in favor of seventh respondent petitioners are before this Court - Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that as against them who are far-more qualified than seventh respondent for reasons known she has been - Minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges for and subsequent amendment made there under to Regulations have not been followed with respect to constitution of Selection Committee and procedures adumbrated for Committees constitution – Held, That inconsistencies can be avoided by applying general rule that words of a proviso are not to be taken absolutely in their strict literal sense but that a proviso is of necessity limited in its operation to ambit of section which it qualifies Lloyds and Scottish Finance Cars and Caravans Kingston - And so far as that section itself is concerned proviso receives a restricted construction where section confers powers it would be contrary to ordinary operation of a proviso to give it an effect which would cut down those powers beyond what compliance with proviso renders necessary - Taking note of ratio laid down therein this Court is of view that Selection committee cannot have an unlimited discretion in selection of candidates - Regulation have to read with - Though Senior Counsel appearing for fourth respondent submitted that by amendment made by way regulation would get amended automatically same cannot be countenanced as it is a primary duty of Court to reconcile various provisions of an Act - In view of express provisions contained in Regulations there cannot be any implied amendment as sought to be argued - In case on hand there is no dispute on that has been adopted - Even otherwise there is no material sufficient enough to hold that marks have been awarded inconsonance with Regulation even for remaining clause a to d - In result selection made in favor of seventh respondent is set aside and consequently fourth respondent is directed to re-constitute Selection Committee strictly in accordance with Regulations of - Fourth respondent will have to follow selection procedure as contemplated under Regulations and light of discussions made - Entire exercise will have to be done by fourth respondent within a period of twelve weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order - Writ petition is allowed