Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
R. Siddheswaran and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
University Grants Commission and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 26159 to 26166 of 2017, W.M.P. Nos., 26164, 27797 to 27812 of 2017
Decided On : 24-04-2019
For the Appellant :AR.L. Sundaresan, S.C. for A.L. Ganthimathi and P.V.S. Giridhar for D. Prasanna, Advocates
For the Respondents:P.R. Gopinathan, Manisundar Gopal and K.V. Sundararajan, Advocates
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Act, 1976 - - Section 4 - payments of service – Employment and service - cancelling the approval granted in respect of their appointments - This batch of eight (8) writ petitions have been filed by individuals qualified for the post of Assistant Professor in the subjects of physics (7 petitioners) and botany (1 petitioner). Their qualifications are not in question. Since the contentions advanced are common across subjects, they are set out below without reference to specific subjects and may be taken to be the common submissions of all petitioners – Held, After conclusion of the hearings spanning several sessions, written submissions were filed by the parties. In the written submissions filed, the Trust has raised some concerns about the appointments made for various other posts in the colleges of the PTB as well. No arguments or even submissions were ever advanced along these lines during the hearings before me and it has been left to me to peruse these additional points and draw such inferences as I may. The matters were listed on several occasions to ensure that the parties were given full time and liberty to made complete and comprehensive submissions. They have chosen to restrict their pursuit of the matters only to the pleadings in the writ petitions and detailed oral submissions advanced and I will, similarly, not traverse beyond this scope. I also reiterate that Mr. Sundararajan appearing for the PTB has also repeatedly emphasized to the Court that there is nothing untoward in the appointments other than the two flaws in procedure pointed out in their counter and pursued in arguments. I leave this matter, at that - One more thing. The petitioners have, admittedly, assumed positions on various dates between 25.02.2016 and 03.03.2016. The missive from the University in the form of the present proceedings holding their appointments to be invalid has been issued only on 18.09.2017 after the petitioners have rendered service for 18 months. This is an unfortunate situation. Committed and qualified teachers are scarce resources and becoming scarcer by the day. Without question, the Regulations of a Regulatory body such as the UGC have to be followed and they are seen to have been followed in the present cases. However, even assuming that the appointments were invalid, there is no justification or explanation available for the elapse of eighteen (18) months for the UGC to arrive at a decision regarding their appointments. In the present cases, the services of the petitioners has not been found to be lacking or inadequate. There is no such allegation in the counters. Even otherwise, there are detailed terms and conditions in the appointment letters issued to the candidates and if at all there are lacunae or shortfall in the merits of any specific candidates, the Board will take appropriate action in specific cases to ensure that merit and quality of the faculty is maintained at all times. Even for this reason, in addition to the reasoning in the earlier paragraphs of this order, I find the impugned proceedings to be unsustainable - Board has also circulated the records of the selection process (three documents). I extract a format of the parameters adopted for selection for the sake of illustration, duly signed by the members of the selection Committee. This is relevant to determine the veracity of the procedure followed by the Board in the case of the petitioners. The signatures appended at the end of the proceedings of the selection committees also attests to the fact that the numbers of attendees is in excess of the required quorum and comprises of sufficient subject experts - petitions are allowed
ORDER :
Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.
1. Pachaiyappa's Trust Board was established under a scheme formulated by the Supreme Court in 1909. Arrayed as the 3rd respondent in all the Writ Petitions, the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board (in short 'PTB' or 'Board') runs several colleges that are aided by the Government, being Pachaiyappa's College, Chennai (PCC), C. Kandaswami Naidu College for Men, Chennai (CKNCMC), Chellammal Women's College, Chennai (CWCC), Pachaiyappa's College for Men, Kancheepuram (PCMK), Pachaiyappa's College for Women, Kancheepuram (PCWK) and C. Kandaswami Naidu College for Women, Cuddalore (CKNCW).
2. This batch of eight (8) writ petitions have been filed by individuals qualified for the post of Assistant Professor in the subjects of physics (7 petitioners) and botany (1 petitioner). Their qualifications are not in question. Since the contentions advanced are common across subjects, they are set out below without reference to specific subjects and may be taken to be the common submissions of all petitioners.
3. Heard Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel for Mrs. AL. Gandhimathi for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 26159, 26160, 26163 to 16166 of 2017 and Mr. P.V.S. Giridhar, learned counsel for Ms. D. Prasanna, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 26161 and 26162 of 2017. The prayers in Writ Petition are identical and one is extracted below for completion of narration, as follows:
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling relating to the order of the 2nd respondent herein dt. 13.09.2017 in AII/MPV/Pachaiyappa's Trust/AP-Approval/2017/334 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein to grant approval for the qualification of the petitioners as Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics and in Botany to petitioner in WP. No. 26164 of 2017 in, Pachaiyappa's College, Chennai 600 030 and grant salary to the petitioners with all attendant benefits from the date of joining, viz. 25.02.2016, 02.03.2016, 25.02.2016, 03.03.2016 & 25.02.2016 till date.
4. There were 66 vacancies in the sanctioned posts of Assistant Professors/Librarian in PCC, CKNCMC, CWCC, PCMK, PCWK and CKNCW. Recruitment notices were issued in The Hindu and Daily Thanthi on 02.12.2015 calling for direct recruitments to the post of Assistant Professor in the Departments of Tamil, English, Sanskrit, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Commerce, Economics, Philosophy, History and Librarian. On-line applications were invited, the last date for submission being 16.12.2015.
5. In so far as physics is concerned, application for 12 posts were solicited, 6 in PCC, 3 in CKNCM, 2 in PCMK and 1 in PCWK. As far as botany is concerned, there were 3 vacancies in 3 colleges, one each in PCC, PCWK and CKNCWC. The petitioners are fully qualified to hold the position of Assistant Professor for Physics and Botany as per the norms issued by the University Grants Commission ('UGC') and applied for the posts. A call letter was issued by R3 on 05.02.2016, calling upon the petitioners to appear for certificate verification and interview on 17.02.2016 at CKNCM.
6. The petitioners appeared for the interview before a Common Selection Committee and were selected for appointment to the respective posts to which they had applied. The petitioners joined the posts on 25.02.2016, 25.02.2016, 02.03.2016, 25.02.2016, 25.02.2016, 03.03.2016, 25.02.2016, & 25.02.2016 respectively and have been working in the posts till date.
7. On 18.09.2017, the petitioners received intimation from R3, conveying the decision/Resolution of the University of Madras, vide letter dated 13.09.2017, cancelling the approval granted in respect of their appointments. The ground on which the grant of approval was rejected as not approved, was that there was a lack of quorum as stipul
