Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1301 (MAD)

S. Chandramohan v. Registrar

2014-06-13

S.NAGAMUTHU

body2014
Judgment : 1. The respondent Anna University issued Advertisement No.001/PR15/2010 dated 14.01.2011 inviting applications for the post in various Departments of Anna University. As per entry 18, there were three vacancies for the post of Professor in Electrical & Electronics Engineering (EEE). As per the Notification, out of the said three vacancies, one was earmarked for General Turn (GT); one for Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) (SC(A)) and one for Most Backward Class (MBC). The petitioner is a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste. Similarly, the 14th respondent also belongs to Scheduled Caste. Several candidates made applications including the petitioner and the 14th respondent herein. A Selection Committee was constituted by the Anna University to select the candidates suitably for appointment based on merits. The Selection Committee, consists of 9 members including the Vice Chancellor who was the Chairman of the Selection Committee. The Committee held its meeting on 14.06.2012. As many as 12 applicants were called for interview for the post of Professor in the Department of EEE including the petitioner and the 14th respondent herein. In the said selection process, the petitioner as well as the 14th respondent had secured equal marks namely 33 each and they were ranked at No.7. No candidate out of these 12 belong to Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) community. Therefore, the Anna University did not select anybody out of the above 12 candidates. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same. Therefore, he is before this Court with this writ petition seeking appropriate direction to the respondent University appointing the petitioner as Professor in EEE Department, as against the said vacancy which was earmarked for Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) community. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Anna University and I have also perused the records carefully. The 14th respondent is present before this Court. I have heard her also. The other respondents in this petition are only formal parties however, they have not appeared before this Court despite service of private notice. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per G.O.Ms.No.61, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (TD2) Department dated 29.05.2009, the seats to be allotted to Arunthathiyars on preferential basis shall be offered in the horizontal rotation such as 2,32 and 66. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per G.O.Ms.No.61, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (TD2) Department dated 29.05.2009, the seats to be allotted to Arunthathiyars on preferential basis shall be offered in the horizontal rotation such as 2,32 and 66. The preferential seats if filled up, it does not mean that the other qualified Arunthathiyars shall not compete with the rest of the Scheduled Castes members on inter-se merits basis; vice versa, if no qualified Arunthathiyars are available to fill up the preferential seats, it does not mean that the vacancies so arising shall not be filled up by the Scheduled Castes members on merit basis. 4. The learned counsel would further submit that in the prospectus issued by the respondents, under the caption General information and instructions to candidates, (vide para 5 and Instruction No.8) it is stated as follows:- “8. If no qualified and suitable candidates belonging to SC (Arunthathiyar) are available the seat reserved for SC(A) will be filled up by other SC members on merit basis.” 5. Referring to the above Government Order and the prospectus issued by the respondent Anna University, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since, there was no candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) community for filling up the vacancy earmarked for the post of Professor in the Department of EEE, the respondent Anna University ought to have filled up the said seat from out of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste. This has not been done is the grievance of the petitioner. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that as per the above two proceedings, the vacancy is earmarked for Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) and in the case on hand, since, no candidate is available to fill up the post earmarked for Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar), the said post should be filled up by appointing a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Case but, the same could not be done in the this case because, out of 12 candidates, who were called for interview, the petitioner and the 14th respondent secured equal marks i.e., 33 marks each. They are the only two candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste. The others belong either to Backward Class or other communities. They are the only two candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste. The others belong either to Backward Class or other communities. Since, these two candidates who belong to Scheduled Caste, who are entitled to be considered as against the said vacancy earmarked for Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar), had secured equal marks, both were not selected and the vacancy was not filled up. 7. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that between the petitioner and the 14th respondent, preference should have been given only to the petitioner if the procedure for appointment in terms of prospectus is followed. 8. The learned counsel would submit that in the prospectus itself, it is stated as follows:- “Post Ph.D. publications and guiding Ph.D students is highly desirable“ 9. Referring to the same, the learned counsel would submit that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has guided 9 students for Ph.D and he has also published Post Ph.D publication in an international Journal. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 14th respondent does not have these qualifications which are desirable. Therefore, according to the petitioner, when in all other respects the petitioner and the 14th respondent are equal, as per the terms of the prospectus, the petitioner should have been selected and appointed to the post of Professor in the Department of EEE by giving preference in terms of the prospectus. 10. The 14th respondent, who is present in Court, would submit that it is true that she had no occasion to guide Ph.D students, but, according to her, she had guided Under Graduate and Post Graduate students. She would further submit that as on the date of prospectus, she had not published any Ph.D publications in any Journal but, subsequent to the same, she, of course, has published certain articles in the International Journals. 11. I have considered the above submissions. 12. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in terms of the Government Order, cited supra and the prospectus, issued by the Anna University, since, there was no eligible candidate available from Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) community, quite naturally, the petitioner and the 14th respondent who belong to Scheduled Caste should have been considered. That has also been done by the respondent University as it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. That has also been done by the respondent University as it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. But, the reason stated for non selection of either the petitioner or the 14th respondent to the said post is that both of them had secured equal marks. 13. In my considered opinion, when both the candidates have got equal marks, one has to go by the desirable qualification. As I have extracted above, as per prospectus, the candidate having “post Ph.D. publications” and “guiding Ph.D. students” is desirable. Admittedly, the petitioner has got Post Ph.D. publications as well he has guided Ph.D. students. The petitioner has also produced documents in proof of the same which is not in dispute. 14. But, admittedly, the 14th respondent had neither made such publications nor did she guided any Ph.D. student though, she claims that she guided U.G and P.G students. That is not the desirable qualification as per the prospectus. Thus, admittedly, among the two candidates, the petitioner alone has got preferential qualification namely, “Post Ph.D. publications” and “guiding Ph.D. Students”. In such view of the matter, though the petitioner and the 14th respondent are equal in all other respects, going by the additional desirable qualification, the petitioner should have been selected and appointed. 15. In view of all the above, the writ petition is allowed; the non selection of the petitioner is set aside and the respondent University is directed to appoint the petitioner as Professor in the Department of EEE as against the vacancy earmarked for Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) as per the prospectus. It is further directed that such appointment order shall be issued by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.