The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of Ph.D., NET, or SLET for appointment as a Lecturer in Physics as per the UGC regulations.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant qualification approval for the petitioner's appointment as Lecturer (in other words called Assistant Professor) in Physics in the fourth respondent College with effect from the forenoon of 03.09.2009, and approval of her said appointment, releasing and paying to her, her salary and all other benefits within a time to be fixed by this Court.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed for Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant qualification approval for the petitioner's appointment as Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Physics in the fourth respondent College with effect from 03.09.2009 and grant appointment approval and consequently release the salary and other benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was qualified with M.Sc., M.Phil. in Physics and she has registered for Ph.D. in Physics and likely to submit her thesis for the same in December 2014. The petitioner belongs to Backward Class community and Nadar Christian. The fourth respondent College is a Christian Religious Minority recognized Government-Aided College. The fifth respondent is the Educational Agency of the fourth respondent College. The contention of the petitioner is that three vacancies of sanctioned posts to the post of Lecturers (Assistant Professor) Physics arouse in the fourth respondent College due to the retirement of three lecturers namely, Saroja Lawrence, V.Sundersingh and Deva Kumar Samuel. The three persons namely, Racil Jaya Geetha, P.J.Jagan Babu and the petitioner namely, T.Asenath Benitta were appointed in the said vacancies. In the meeting held on 02.09.2009, the sixth respondent had selected the petitioner and others for the appointment and the same was ratified by the fifth respondent on 15.09.2009. Based on the minutes of the meeting, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 03.09.2009. Regarding re-fixation of number of teachers on the basis of work load, the fourth respondent College vide communication dated 03.09.2010 furnished to the second respondent about the subject wise teachers work load. In the said communication, the fourth respondent stated the above said retirement of three Lecturers in Physics in the College with their respective dates of retirement and the requirement for three lecturers in Physics. Thereafter, as per proceedings dated 04.07.2014 of the second respondent, the fifth respondent College on 05.07.2014 resolved to appoint only two persons namely, Racil Jaya Geetha and P.J.Jagan Babu in the fourth respondent College with effect from 07.07.2014, in which the respondents had earlier appointed along with the petitioner.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s name was left out, however there are unfilled post among the three vacancies. This is evident from the resolution of the fifth respondent passed on 05.07.2014 and the third candidate was specifically left out. Even though the petitioner was qualified as M.Sc., and M.Phil., the respondents have deliberately left out the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she is fully qualified as on the date of appointment dated 03.09.2009 in the sanctioned post. Based on the proceedings of the first respondent, steps were taken for approval of the two candidates namely Racil Jaya Geetha and P.J.Jagan Babu. The petitioner was continuously working even thereafter ever since her appointment without any break and without any disciplinary proceedings. Aggrieved over the attitude of the respondents, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.20206 of 2013. This Court vide order dated 13.12.2013 directed the fourth respondent to consider and pass orders. The petitioner also submits that there is one more order in W.P.(MD)No. 16886 of 1992 dated 07.07.1995 and based on these two orders, the respondents have not considered, hence the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. T