Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2960
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Dr. S. Baskaran Technical Officer - Petitioner
Versus
The University of Madras, represented by its Registrar & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.Nos.8601, 11273, 11274 of 2013, W.P.No.30240 of 2015, M.P.Nos.1,2,1,2,1,2 of 2013, MP.No.1 of 2015 & WMP.No.8046 of 2016
Decided On : 23-10-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. C. Selvaraj, Senior counsel for M/s. M. Muthukrishnan, Mr. L. Chandrakumar
For the Respondents: Mrs. G. Thilakavathi, Senior counsel for M/s. P. Aishwariya, Mr. A. Raja Perumal Additional Government Pleader, Mr. P.K. Gopinathan
The main legal point established is that the denial of promotion to qualified candidates, especially in the presence of vacancies, is improper and the court can direct the appointment of the candidates based on their eligibility.
Headnote:
Assistant Librarian - Promotion Claim - UGC Regulations 4.5.1, 4.5.3 - The court discussed the UGC regulations 4.5.1 and 4.5.3, highlighting the qualifications required for the post of Assistant Librarian and the exemption for Ph.D. degree holders from certain eligibility conditions. The court emphasized the denial of promotion to a Ph.D. degree holder despite vacancies and directed the university to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Librarian.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought promotion to the post of Assistant Librarian at the University of Madras based on their qualifications and eligibility. The university denied their promotion, leading to the filing of writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of promotion to the petitioners, who met the required qualifications, was improper. It emphasized the availability of vacancies and directed the university to appoint the petitioners as Assistant Librarians.
Issues: The core issue involved the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Librarian, based on their qualifications and eligibility, despite the university's denial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of promotion to the petitioners, who met the required qualifications, was improper, especially in the presence of vacancies. It emphasized the importance of considering the petitioners' eligibility and directed the university to appoint them as Assistant Librarians.
Final Decision: The court allowed all the writ petitions and directed the university to appoint the petitioners as Assistant Librarians, conferring all consequential benefits.
1. In all these writ petitions the core issue involved is one and the same, pertaining to the claim of the respective petitioners to promote them to the post of Assistant Librarian in the university of Madras.
2. The case of the petitioner in WP.No.8601 of 2013 namely Dr. Baskaran is that he Joined service under the 1st respondent as Assistant Technical Officer in the month of March 1998 with qualification of M.A., and M. Lis. In the month of December 2004 the petitioner obtained M. Phil decree. In the month of March 2012 the petitioner having completed his research work obtained his Ph.D., Degree.
3. In the meantime, on 11.02.2008 the syndicate of the 1st respondent University passed a Resolution to promote four Technical Officers as Assistant Librarian. However, the petitioner’s name was not found in the promotion list, though he was eligible. When the petitioner sought particulars under the RTI Act for the non inclusion of his name, it was informed by the 1st respondent that no Technical Officer (Library) is considered for the above promotion. According to the petitioner he is fully qualified for the post of Assistant Librarian.
4. The prescribed qualification for the said post as per the Regulations of the UGC made in No.F3-1/2009 dated 30.06.2010 is as follows:
4.5.1 UIVERSITY LIBRARIAN
(i) A Master’s degree in Library Science/Information Science/Documentation with at least 55 % marks or its equivalent grade of B in the UGC seven point scale and a consistently good academic record set out in these regulations.
(ii) At least thirteen years as a Deputy Librarian in a University library of 18 years experience as a College librarian.
(iii) Evidence of innovative library science and organization of published work.
(iv) Desirable: A. Mphil/Ph.D Degree in Library Science/Information Science/Documentation/ achieves and manuscript-keeping.
4.5.3 UNIVERSITY ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN/COLLEGE LIBRARIAN
(i) A Master’s degree in Library Science/Information Science/Documentation or an equivalent professional degree with at least 55 percent marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) and a consistently good academic record with computerization of library.
(ii) Qualifying in national level test conducted for the purpose by the UGC or any other agency approved by the UGC.
(iii) However, candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph.D Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009 shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition Assistant of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of University Assistant Director of Physical Education/ College Director of Physical Education and Sports.
Therefore now the petitioner is eligible for the post of Assistant Librarian in view of the clauses in 4.5.1(i) and (iv) and 4.5.3(iii).
5. At the time of above said promotion of 4 persons in the year 2008, it was sufficient that the candidate must possess a M.Phil. decree, whereas a Ph.d. decree was not required at the relevant point of time. It is relevant that though, this petitioner had M.Phil. degree, he was not promoted as Assistant Librarian.
6. It is further case of the petitioner is that now the prescribed qualification for the post of Assistant Librarian is a Ph.D. Being so, nine post of Assistant Librarian fell vacant and hence the petitioner expected for an interview to the said post. In the Syndicate meeting held on 21.03.2013 it was decided to go ahead with the appointment of the Assistant Librarians, immediately after the selection committee meeting. But shockingly without calling the petitioner for Interview, the petitioner’s juniors namely the respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.No.8601 of 2013 were called for an interview. Hence the petitioner submitted a representation on 22.03.2013 to the Registrar, Madras University to include his name for promotion. Since the said representation was not considered, he
