Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1115 (MAD)

Dr. T. Selvaraj v. The Chairman & Others

2002-09-24

E.PADMANABHAN

body2002
Judgment :- The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the second respondent in L.o.14134/96/A1, dated 24.7.1996 and direct the respondents to consider the appointment of petitioner's candidature for the post of Assistant Professor in Production Engineering Department of Regional Engineering College, Trichirappallli. 2. The respondents have been served and ;they have also entered appearance through their respective counsel. With the consent of counsel for either side,the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. Heard Mr.V.Arulraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioenr and Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.G.Rajendran, for Mr.P.Mathivanan, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent 4. According to the petitioner he is employed as Lecturer in Production Engineering in the respondent-Regional Engineering college from 1983. The said college invited applications by Employment Notice No. 14/95 during November, 1995 to fill up various vacancies in the cadre of Professors and Assistant Professors. In the said notification, the qualifications have been prescribed for each of the post. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Production Engineering as he possess B.E. Mechanical Engineering, M.E., Production Engineering and Ph.D., in Production Engineering. The petitioner also claims that he has specialised in the area of Robotics (Ph.D., research topic, Modelling simulation and Analysis or Robot Manipulators). The petitioner has rich experience as Lecturer between 20th July, 1978 to 31.8.1982 in Annamalai University and a second spell of service in the second respondent college from 1982 onwards. The petitioner completed his Ph.D., before June 1996 and he is schedule to appear for interview. An interview was conducted on 23.7.1996. The petitioner states that he has performed well in the interview. However, the fourth respondent who is junior to the petitioner in service was selected and appointed as Assistant Professor in Production Engineering by the impugned proceedings dated 24.7.1996. It is contended that the 4th respondent do not possess the qualification viz., Post Graduation in Production Engineering, which is the qualification prescribed for the Post of Assistant Professor in Production Engineering in terms of the Employment Notification as advertised by the respondent. Therefore, the appointment is illegal and arbitrary. 5. It is contended that the 4th respondent do not possess the qualification viz., Post Graduation in Production Engineering, which is the qualification prescribed for the Post of Assistant Professor in Production Engineering in terms of the Employment Notification as advertised by the respondent. Therefore, the appointment is illegal and arbitrary. 5. It is pointed out that the 4th respondent is not having a First Class Master's Degree in production engineering and therefore he is not eligible for being considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Production Engineering. The 4th respondent also is not possessed of the required area specialisation specified in the Information and Instructions. 6. The 4th respondent is not specialised in any of the area required for the post of Assistant Professor in terms of the Advertisement/Notification No.14/95. Hence the selection, recruitment and appointment of 4th respondent who is not possessed of the qualification is illegal. The learned counsel solely contended that the 4th respondent is not possessed of the prescribed qualification and therefore his selection is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed. 7. The respondents 1,2 and 3 have not filed a counter. But, Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel made his submissions on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. On behalf of the 4th respondent, who has been selected and appointed, a counter has been filed. 8. According to the 4th respondent, in all almost all the overseas Universities and reputed Universities in India, Production Engineering specialisation is not separated from the Mechanical Engineering Department and it is only a part of the Mechanical Engineering. According to the Employment Notice published there is no specialisation specified in the Newspapers Advertisement either for the post of Professor or for the post of Assistant Professor. In the Information and Instructions to Candidates for the post of Assistant Professor, it is stated "requires specialisation of CAD/CAM, Robotics and Industrial Engineering". It is alleged that the said specialiasation is without consulting any one. Such qualification has been issued at the behest of the Head of the Department who was desirous of helping the writ petitioner. The very head of the Department himself was a candidate for the Post of Professor during 1992 where no such specialisation has been indicated. Even for the IIT, Guwahati Staff Selection advertisement effected during April 1996 no such specialisation in Production Engineer was prescribed. 9. The very head of the Department himself was a candidate for the Post of Professor during 1992 where no such specialisation has been indicated. Even for the IIT, Guwahati Staff Selection advertisement effected during April 1996 no such specialisation in Production Engineer was prescribed. 9. The petitioner has not completed his Ph.D., or has obtained Degree even on the last date for receiving the application as per the Advertisement No.14/95. The 4th respondent has undergone six prescribed higher level research courses at McMaster University, CANADA before his Ph.D., Programme and he is a Doctorate on the date of submission of application for the said post. The 4th respondent has completed his M.Tech Course ;in June, 1979 and he has finished his Doctorate in the year 1992, besides he has two post graduates degree including specialised subjects in CAD/CAM (solid Mechanics with application in Production Engineering) as stated in the Instructions to the Candidates. It is claimed that the 4th respondent has completed his M.Tech course in June 1979 and he has put in same number of years of service as that of the petitioner. The 4th respondent has worked in Research Development Sections of various Industries, also worked in number of Projects sponsored by the Government of India and he is Author of 30 Technical papers. Therefore, the question of senior or junior does not arise at all. It is also contended that the post is a selection post and the question of senior or junior does not arise. It is incorrect to contend that the 4th respondent is not possessed of the qualification prescribed. The 4th respondent is possessing master's Degree in Metallurgy under the Production Engineering specialisation and with 70% average and he has been handling courses relating to Producting Engineering for the last 10 years both for Under Graduate and Post Graduate Degrees. The area specialisation pointed out by the petitioner is neither essential nor it has got a bearing. The claim that the petitioner is specialised in Robotics is merely added and included as one of the area of the specialisation in the list by the Head of the Department with sole motive to protect the petitioner. The area specialisation pointed out by the petitioner is neither essential nor it has got a bearing. The claim that the petitioner is specialised in Robotics is merely added and included as one of the area of the specialisation in the list by the Head of the Department with sole motive to protect the petitioner. It is claimed that the 4th respondent has been selected by a Committee constituted in this respect after comparison of the respective merits of the candidates namely the 4th respondent and the petitioner and the 4th respondent has been selected by the selection committee and appointed. It is contended that the 4th respondent is possessed of the qualification prescribed and the contention to the contra is incorrect and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. The points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the 4th respondent is possessed of the qualification prescribed for the post as seen from the Employment Notification? (ii) Whether the Selection and appointment of 4th respondent is illegal or arbitrary and liable to be interfered? 11. At the outset the portion of the employment notification which is relevant has to be taken note of. (A)Assistant Professors Field of specialization 2(c) Production Engineering CAD/CAM, Robotics or Industrial Engineering (B)qualification prescribed for the posts 2. Assistant Professors i) First Class Master's degree in appropriate branch of Engg./Tech or Ph.D., in appropriate Branch with first class in Master's Degree in case of teaching posts in Humanities and Sciences ii) 5 years experience in Teaching/Industry/Research at the appropriate level Note: Candidate from IndustryProfession with recognised professional work equivalent to Master's degeree in the cse of Engg/Tech. And Ph.D. In the case of Humanities and Sciences as the case may also be eligible DESIRABLE: Ph.D.Degre in Engg/Tech. Or Post Doctoral Work in case of teaching posts in Humanities/Sciences 12. There is no controversy that the above is the qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Professors in Production Engineering. For the post of Assistant Professors in Production Engineer, a First Class Master's Degree in the branch of Production Engineering/Technology is the essential qualification. The alternative qualification namely "Ph.D., in appropriate branch with First Class in Master's Degree in case of teaching post in Humanities/Sciences" is not relevant for the post of Assistant Professors in Production Engineering. 13. The experience prescribed in Clause (ii) is relevant. The alternative qualification namely "Ph.D., in appropriate branch with First Class in Master's Degree in case of teaching post in Humanities/Sciences" is not relevant for the post of Assistant Professors in Production Engineering. 13. The experience prescribed in Clause (ii) is relevant. Ph.D., qualification in the same branch of Engineering/Technology is desirable. It is seen from the notification the field of specialisation for the Post of Assistant Professor in the Production Engineering has been set out as CAD/CAM, Robotics or Industrial Engineering. This is the qualification that is prescribed for the post. On a consideration of the above qualification it is rightly pointed by the counsel for the petitioner that for the post of Assistant Professor in Production Engineering, the required minimum qualification being First Class M.E., Production Engineering. Admittedly, the 4th respondent is not possessed of the Master's Degree in Production Engineering. The 4th respondent also is not possessed of qualification prescribed, viz., the field of specialities as seen from the Information and Instructions annexed to the Advertisement Notice No.14/95, while, admittedly, the petitioner has specialised in CAD/CAM. Robotics or Industrial Engineering and there is no quarrel in this respect. Hence, it is clear that as against the fourth respondent, the petitioner alone possessed of essential qualification for the post of Assistant Professor Production Engineering. 14. Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent-college sought to interpret the educational qualification as if possession of M.E., Mechanical Engineering is more than sufficient or equivalent to M.E.,Production Engineering and therefore the 4th respondent is eligible to be considered and appointed. It is further contended that the 4th respondent is qualified as he has number of research papers, besides Ph.D., in Production Engineering. In this respect the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in terms of the Regulations framed by the Bharathidasan University, Trichirappalli, in "Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.,), it is mentioned that "a candidate possessing the qualifying degree in a subject shall be permitted to carry out Ph.D., in another related subject/Department facilitating interdisciplinary research". Therefore it is pointed out that merely because the 4th respondent has been awarded Ph.D., degree in Production Engineering, it cannot be stated that he is possessed of the qualification prescribed namely First Class M.E., (Production Engineering), which is the essential qualification prescribed for the post. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be sustained. 15. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be sustained. 15. Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel contended that hitherto before Production Engineering was the part of Mechanical Engineering Department and the 4th respondent who possess a B.E.,Degree (Metallurgy Engineering) and M.Tech., Degree (Industrial Metallurgy), besides Ph.D., Research in Production Engineering is well qualified to hold the post. This contention advanced by Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent cannot be sustained as the essential qualification is not possessed by the fourth respodnent. The qualification prescribed for the post being M.E.,/M.Tech., Degree in Production Engineering and not Industrial Metallurgy or any other branch of engineering. Therefore it is clear that the 4th respondent is not possessed of the qualification prescribed and the contention to the contra cannot be sustained. 16. It is further contended that an Expert Body has considered the qualifications possessed by the petitioenr and the 4th respondent and they are selected and therefore the selection is not liable to be interfered. Though this contention is attractive, this court is unable to sustain the same as the 4th respondent though possess a Ph.D., is not possessing the essential qualification in the faculty of Production Engineering prescribed namely First Class M.E.(Production Engineering). 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Dr.Bhanu Prasad Panda, Vs. Chancellor, Sambalpur University and others, reported in 2001 (6) Supreme 908 = 2001 (8) SCC 532 , where D.RAJU,J., speaking for the Bench held that while filling up the vacancies the qualification prescribed in the relevant notification is the criteria for appointment. Following the same in the present case, as the 4th respondent is not possessed of the essential qualification namely M.E., in Production Engineering it has to be held that the selection of 4th respondent is not legal. 18. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon various other pronouncements in support of their contention that this court will not be justified in interfering with the selection made by the Expert Bodies in academic bodies. It is true that if both the candidates possess the prescribed essential qualification and if one of them is selected on a comparative merits, this court will not venture to examine the validity of selection or appointment. It is true that if both the candidates possess the prescribed essential qualification and if one of them is selected on a comparative merits, this court will not venture to examine the validity of selection or appointment. But, in this case, it is non possession of the prescribed essential qualification by the selected 4th respondent which disentitles him to claim the post. 19. In the circumstances, the impugned proceedings are quashed and the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for selection, while reconsidering the merits of the petitioner and other applicants excluding the 4th respondent, for the said post. The respondents shall constitute a new selection committee, who shall consider all eligible applicants except 4th respondent and select the suitable candidate on a comparative merits strictly in accordance with the Employment Notification and pass orders within three months from the date of communication of a copy of this order or production thereof. 20. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are closed as unnecessary.