O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Ref.No. GIRH/ESTT/2011-2012/0599, dated 15.09.2011 and to quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as Chief, Population Research Centre, with all pay protection and extra increments in the first respondent Institute.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined in the first respondent Gandhigram Institute as Statistician in the year 1988 and working as Statistician for the past 24 years. The petitioner's educational qualification is M.Sc., P.G.D.C.A., M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D., and passed NET in Population Studies. In response to the Vacancy Notification dated 04.02.2010, issued by the first respondent Gandhigram Institute, the petitioner applied for the post of Chief, Population Research Centre (PRC).

The prescribed qualifications for the said post is --

(i) High second class PG Degree in Demography /

Statistics / Economics / Sociology / Psychology /

Anthropology / Geography / Mathematics;

(ii) with Post graduate degree other than Demography should have studied / training in Demography / Population studies and (iii) 15 years of teaching / research experience in Population studies / Demography / conducting of socio economic / demographic survey. The desirable qualification is Ph.D., degree or published work of equivalent standard and administrative experience.

Pursuant to the abovesaid notification and the application of the petitioner, the petitioner was called for an interview and he appeared on

05.09.2011.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the second respondent is not having the requisite qualification of 15 years of teaching / research experience in Population studies / Demography / conducting of socio- economic / demographic surveys and, therefore, he is not qualified to be considered for the said post and his application cannot be entertained. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the second respondent joined the Department in the year 1997 as Clerk in the ministerial service and the said service cannot be taken into consideration for calculating the period of 15 years research experience. Therefore, considering the application of the 2nd respondent for the post of Chief, Population Research Centre is wholly unsustainable.

4. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Screening Committee had short listed the names of two candidates of which one was the petitioner. But the name of the second respondent was not included. However, without inclusion of the name in the shortlist and without the requisite qualification, the second respondent was appointed in the said post, which appointment is wholly unsustainable as the 2nd respondent does not have the requisite qualification and experience. Challenging the said order of appointment, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a comparison of the qualifications and other records of the petitioner and the second respondent would reveal that the 2nd respondent lacks the requisite qualification as well as the experience. Further, in the present case, the appointing authority is the Screening Committee and the report submitted by the Screening Committee clearly reveals that recommendation was made shortlisting the names of two persons which was sent for the approval of the Ministry. However, for reasons best known, the 2nd respondent has been appointed in the said post, in the absence of the requisite qualification and experience and that the certificate issued by the 4th respondent pertains to clerical experience, which is not the mandated research experience and allowing him to participate by approving the application itself is impermissible. The petitioner has been deprived of his promotion due to lackluster selection process undertaken by the respondents and the selection of the 2nd respondent for the said post in the abs