SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
R. Srinivasan - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 4907 of 2011 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011
Decided On : 02-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:V.R. Rajasekaran, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 & R2, M. Muthusamy, Government Advocate, R3, C. Kathiravan, R4, K.V. Subramanian, Advocates.

The relevance of the candidate's qualifications to the advertised post and the application of communal roster and rules of procedure in the selection process.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Business Administration - G.O.Ms.No.412, Higher Education Department, dated 07.12.2009 - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash the provisional selection list for Assistant Professors in Business Administration and award additional marks to the petitioner, citing that the petitioner's M.Phil. degree in Commerce was not considered a relevant subject for the post, and the selection was finalized based on the communal roster and rules of procedure in force.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash the provisional selection list for Assistant Professors in Business Administration, claiming that he should have been awarded additional marks for his M.Phil. degree and that the selection process was not conducted properly.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's M.Phil. degree in Commerce was not considered a relevant subject for the post, and the selection was finalized based on the communal roster and rules of procedure in force. The court declined to go into the merits of the issues raised by the petitioner due to the efflux of time.

Issues: The issues revolved around the awarding of marks for the petitioner's qualifications and the selection process for Assistant Professors in Business Administration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's M.Phil. degree in Commerce was not considered a relevant subject for the post, and the selection was finalized based on the communal roster and rules of procedure in force. The court declined to entertain the petitioner's claims due to the efflux of time.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent herein pertaining to the provisional List of selected candidates in the subject Business Administration [Sub.Code B34] for the recruitment of Assistant Professors Notified in its Advt.No.4/2010, dated 29.03.2010 and quash the same in so far as the same relates to the selection of 4th respondent herein under Open Category [GT] and direct the third respondent herein to award 6 marks to the petitioner for his additional qualification – M.Phil with SLET/NET instead of 5 marks already awarded and consequently, redraw the selection list for GT and Backward Class – General [BG] categories by placing the petitioner herein at S.No.62, reserved for BG [12th roster point reserved for BG] or in the alternate at S.No.47 [9th roster point reserved for BG] due to the increase of total marks of the petitioner to 30 from 29.)

1. The relief sought in this writ petition is to call for the records of the third respondent herein pertaining to the provisional List of selected candidates in the subject Business Administration [Sub.Code B34] for the recruitment of Assistant Professors Notified in its Advt.No.4/2010, dated 29.03.2010 and quash the same, in so far as the same relates to the selection of fourth respondent herein under Open Category [GT] and direct the third respondent herein to award 6 marks to the petitioner for his additional qualification – M.Phil with SLET/NET instead of 5 marks already awarded and consequently, redraw the selection list for GT and Backward Class – General [BG] categories by placing him at S.No.62, reserved for BG [12th roster point reserved for BG] or in the alternate at S.No.47 [9th roster point reserved for BG] due to the increase of his total marks to 30 from 29.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The third respondent vide Advertisement No.4/2010 dated 29.03.2010, has issued a notification, inviting applications from eligible candidates for 64 vacancies to the post of Assistant Professors in the subject – Business Administration [Subject Code: B 34], in response to which, the petitioner has applied for the post of Assistant Professor [Business Administration] in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Education Service. As per the prospectus issued by the third respondent, the two basic and essential qualifications to apply for the post notified are as follows:

(i) All candidates except S.C and S.T should have passed a Post Graduate Degree in the relevant subject with minimum of 55% marks and

(ii) All candidates should have passed NET/SLET/SLST or an accredited test equivalent to UGC Norms in the relevant subject.

2.1. The petitioner belongs to BC Category and his educational qualifications are B.Com., M.B.A., & M.Phil. He has also passed SLET/NET. While Certificate Verification, the third respondent has awarded 29 marks to the petitioner. Actually, the third respondent ought to have awarded 6 marks to the petitioner since he has completed M.Phil., degree and also, passed SLET/NET, but, the third respondent has awarded only 5 marks to the petitioner as if he does not have M.Phil., degree.

2.2. On 17.02.2011, the third respondent published the provisional list of selected candidates, however, the said list was not communicated to the petitioner nor published in the newspaper. The third respondent has selected 10 candidates under GT Category after reserving 3 GT vacancies for Special Category and 12 candidates under BC [General] Category. The fourth respondent who belongs to Forward Community is not entitled to be selected under GT Category, but, the third respondent has illegally selected him under GT Category. Though the petitioner was eligible to compete for the 10 vacancies reserved under GT Category and also, 12 vacancies reserved under BC [General] Category, he was not selected since the third r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top