Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3595
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N. MANJULA, J.
PTV. Bhuvaneswari, Professor, Department of Electronics Engineering, Madras Institute of Technology, Anna University - Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai and Anr. – Respondents
W.P. No.2104 of 2019
Decided On : 04-02-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Richardson Wilson for M/s. Wilson Associates.
For the Respondents: Mr. U. Baranidharan.
Candidates should not be penalized for administrative delays; seniority must be recalibrated to reflect the notification date, not appointment date.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Writ Petition - Challenge to order regarding pay and seniority - Petitioner, an eligible candidate for the post of Professor, was denied appointment due to a misinterpretation of educational qualifications by the University - The court found that the petitioner’s qualifications were compatible with the requirements, confirmed by previous rulings - The court directed the University to fix the petitioner’s seniority on par with other appointees from the same selection year, but denied monetary benefits associated with the revised seniority. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 7, 13)
(B) Seniority - Determination - The principle established that candidates cannot be held responsible for delays in appointments due to the fault of the appointing authority, thus seniority should relate back to the date of notification. (Paras 7, 10)
(C) Judicial Precedent - Reliance on previous judgments to ensure fairness in seniority determination for candidates affected by administrative anomalies. (Paras 8, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for the post of Professor under SC reservation, but her application was rejected based on a misinterpretation of the required qualifications. After legal proceedings confirmed her eligibility, she sought seniority placement alongside her peers from the 2014 selection.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the previous orders denying the petitioner’s seniority, and directed her placement in the 2014 selection list as the last candidate, noting no monetary benefits would be granted.
Issues: The main issues addressed were the compatibility of the petitioner’s qualifications with the job requirements and the legality of her seniority placement relative to her peers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that delays caused by administrative errors should not penalize candidates, and seniority should be recalibrated to reflect the date of notification rather than the date of appointment.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER :
(R.N. MANJULA, J.)
Heard Mr.Richardson Wilson, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.U.Baranidharan, the learned counsel for the first respondent.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the second respondent passed in Resolution No.249.15 dated 03.09.2018 and the orders of the first respondent in Procs No.001/PR15/2014 dated 23.01.2018 and the Procs.No.011/PR20/14 dated 15.02.2018 and to direct the first respondent to fix the pay and seniority of the petitioner on par with the other Professors in the first respondent university selected vide notification Adv.No.:001/PR 15/2014 dated 07.01.2014 and grant attendant benefits to her.
3. In response to the notification issued by the first respondent on 07.01.2014 calling for the candidates for the post of 'Assistant Professor', 'Associate Professor' and 'Professor' in various departments of Anna University, the petitioner had applied to the post of 'Professor' in Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department by claiming reservation under Scheduled Caste (SC) Arunthathiyar community. However, the petitioner's candidature was rejected by citing the reason that the educational qualification possessed by her is not compatible to the qualifications prescribed in the notification for the post of 'Professor'. The petitioner had possessed the degrees in Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and Master of Engineering (M.E.) in Applied Electronics and Ph.D. in Networking. However, the respondent University demanded that the petitioner ought to have possessed the degree in B.E. in Electronics and Communication Engineering.
4. The petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.28167 of 2017 challenging the above rejection and claimed that the notification had omitted to mention the relevant branch of B.E. for the post notified. The writ petition has been dismissed and the Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the same was allowed by confirming that the petitioner's qualification was very much compatible as per the rules for the post called for. The Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent University also got dismissed by confirming the judgment of the Writ Appellate Court. Now the petitioner has filed the present writ petition stating that had the respondent University did not accept her qualification as the required qualification for the post called for, she would not have missed her appointment in the year 2014 itself along with the other appointees.
5. Mr.Richardson Wilson, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that once the petitioner's qualification is found to be satisfactory and compatible to the requirements of educational qualification sought in the notification, then it would operate and relate back to the date of notification and hence the petitioner's placement should be given effect from the date of the notification and the petitioner's seniority should be counted on par with the other appointees who were appointed in pursuant to the notification.
6. No doubt the petitioner had raised a claim for eligibility for appointment to the post called for in the earlier notification issued by the respondent University in the year 2014 and she found herself qualified to the said post in view of the orders passed by the Writ Appellate Court which was later confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also. But the petitioner's claim for seniority by placing her along with the 2014 batch of selection has to be analysed and the position of law already settled in this regard.
7. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Singh Dangi and Pinki Asati and others reported in (2022) 12 SCC 401 , wherein it is held that the candidates cannot be held responsible for the anomaly that has arisen in the later appointments and hence they have been ordered to be given with due seniority from such deemed date of appointment and not from the actual date of their appointment.
