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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 5205

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice T. VINOD KUMAR
Dr.Manikandan Rajagopal – Appellant
Versus
All India Council for Technical Education – Respondent



##PAGE1##

W.P.No.25115 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.02.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

W.P.No.25115 of 2021

and WMP.Nos.26466, 26467 and 26468 of 2021

Dr.Manikandan Rajagopal ... Petitioner

vs

All India Council for Technical Education

Rep by its Member Secretary

Ministry of Education,

Government of India

Nelson Mandela Marg

Vasant Kuni

New Delhi – 110 070. … Respondent

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to cal for the records pertaining

to the public notice in No.F.2-33/2020-21/AdminE/Rectt.Gr A, B & C/dated

12.11.2021 issued by the respondent and quash the same and direct the respondent

to consider the name of the petitioner for interview to the post of Additional

Director.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arasu Sanga Tamil

for Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja

For Respondent : Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, SCGC

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned

counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records.

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 04:22:38 pm )

##PAGE2##

W.P.No.25115 of 2021

2.The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed the action of the

respondent in not considering the appointment of the petitioner to the post of

Additional Director of the respondent, pursuant to the advertisement caused by the

respondent to fill up the vacancies by way of direct recruitment under

Advertisement No.Admin.(Estt.)/02(01)2021 dated 12.02.2021.

3. The petitioner contended that under the aforesaid advertisement

applications have been called for to fill up various vacancies including that of

Assistant Director in the pay matrix Level-11 as per 7th CPC, numbering to 13

vacancies and that the petitioner being eligible to the post of Assistant Director,

had applied to the same; and that the respondent by the public notice dated

12.11.2021 had rejected his application with remarks “Less experience as per RR.

Not Recommended”.

4. The petitioner contended as per the advertisement caused by the

respondent, the required experience is 8 years of service at Teaching or Research,

Educational planning or Administration, Training; and that as he had worked as

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 04:22:38 pm )

##PAGE3##

W.P.No.25115 of 2021

lecturer in Karunya University during the period between 2010-2015, and

thereafter having worked at RAMP IT (an I.T. Company between 2015-2017) he

has fulfilled the eligibility criteria of having teaching experience of 4 years, as

specified in the advertisement. Thus, the rejection of his candidature by the

respondent is illegal, arbitrary and he is liable to be appointed as Assistant

Director.

5. The respondent filed counter affidavit.

6. The respondent by the counter affidavit contended that the petitioner

did not have the requisite experience as per the advertisement caused for filling up

the vacancy of Assistant Director post and as such experience of the petitioner was

not considered.

7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

8. Though it is vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner of he

having required experience of 8 years of service out of which 4 years of teaching,

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 04:22:38 pm )

##PAGE4##

W.P.No.25115 of 2021

it is pertinent to note that the relevant Clause of experience mentioned in the

advertisement reads as under :-

Experience : Eight years experience at supervisory

level out of which, at least four years experience in Teaching or

Research, Educational planning or Administration, Training in

Central or State Government or University or other institutions

of higher education or Autonomous Bodies or PSUs.”

(Underlining supplied by Court)

9. A reading of the above clause in the advertisement dealing with

experience specifies that the required experience of eight years should be at

supervisory level, out of which at least 4 year experience should be in teaching or

research

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