Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
E. Muralidharan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD), Government of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
[PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 01.06.2017 passed in W.P.No.22489 of 2013.]
The writ of quo warranto has been instituted to show on what Authority the second respondent can hold the post of Director of Indian Institute of Technology, Madras.
2. Dr. E. Muralidharan, party-in-person articulated his case by enumerating the procedures to be adopted mandatorily under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is contended that no such established procedures had been followed while undertaking the process of selection to appoint the second respondent as the Director of Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. Dr. E. Muralidharan, could able to show us that the procedures followed resulted in discrimination and non-consideration of all eligible candidates, who all are aspiring to secure the post of Director in IIT, Madras. Equality clause enunciated under the Constitution had been violated. Unilateral decision of the Ministry has been adopted for the purpose of appointing the second respondent as Director of IIT, Madras. Thus, he is constrained to move the writ of quo warranto.
3. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, lear
The court emphasized the necessity of following established procedures for appointments in public institutions to uphold the principles of equality and transparency.
The decision-making process must adhere to established norms and be free from bias and favoritism.
The withdrawal of a selection process can be justified if it is not mala fide, arbitrary, or for ulterior considerations, and does not fall foul of constitutional provisions.
The court ruled that the appointment of the Registrar was valid as it followed the proper selection process, and the petitioner lacked locus standi and delayed in filing the writ petition.
Judicial review in selection processes should respect expert assessments unless there's evidence of procedural impropriety or mala fides; estoppel applies when candidates participate without contesti....
The court upheld the petitioner's right to challenge the legality of selection proceedings for the Director of IHRD and emphasized adherence to proper appointment procedures.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
