IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 28.01.2008
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN
Writ Petition No. 30935 of 2007
M.P.NO.2 of 2007
1.K.Vasudevan
2.S.R.Vijayalakshmi .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Teachers Recruitment Board,
rep. by its Chairman,
EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound,
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.K.Venmathi
4.N.Om Muruga
5.D.Sathes Kumar ..Respondents
Respondents 3 to 5 were impleaded as
per order of this Court dated23.1.2008 in
M.P.No.1 of 2008 by PSDJ
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to interview the petitioners to the post of Lecturer in Electronic Science in Government College of Education for the year 2006-2007 pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.9.2006 issued by the 2nd respondent, consider and appoint the petitioners as Lecturer in Electronic Science in the Government Colleges.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad
for M/s Row and Reddy
For Respondents 1 & 2:Mr.G.Sankaran
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents 3 to 5: Mr.R.N.Amarnath
--------
O R D E R
The petitioners, who were aggrieved, since they were not called for interview for the post of Lecturers in the Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education (2006-07), obtained an interim order on 21.9.2007 to keep two posts vacant. So, the Government urgently moved a petition to vacate the said interim order. Similarly, the persons who were impleaded on 23.1.2008 also contended that they have been prejudiced and their right of selection to the posts of Lecturer has been greatly affected, by the interim order.
2. Therefore, by consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the petitioners claim to be highly qualified. As regards petitioner No.1, his qualifications are as follows:
July 1990 - B.Sc Electronics from Bharathiyar University May 1992 - M.Sc Applied Electronics from Bharathiyar University Aug 2003 - Enrolled for M.Phil - Electronics in part-time course July 2005 - Theory Examination taken by the 1st petitioner. 10.11.2006- M.Phil -Electronics awarded by Bharathiyar University As regards petitioner No.2, her qualifications are as follows: May 1992 - B.Sc Electronics from Bharathiyar University May 1994- M.Sc Applied Electronics from Bharathiyar University Nov 2004 - Enrolled for M.Phil - Electronics in part-time course Dec 2005 - Theory examination taken by the 2nd petitioner May 2007 - M.Phil - Electronics awarded by Bharathiyar University 4. On 18.9.2006, advertisement was issued calling for applications for direct recruitment to the post of lecturers. The prospectus reads as follows: Qualifications:
a) All candidates other than SC/ST: Candidates with (i) Post graduate degree in the subject with minimum 55% marks and (ii) a pass in the UGC/CSIR/JRF/NET Lecturer-ship test or State Level Educational Testing (SLET)
(OR)
Candidates with (i) Postgraduate degree in the subject with a minimum of 55% and (ii) M.Phil or Ph.D. degree or both, are eligible to apply.
(b) For SC/ST candidates: Candidates with (1) Postgraduate degree in the subject with minimum 50% marks and (ii) a pass in the UGC/CSIR/JRF/NET Lecturer-ship test or State Level Educational Testing (SLET)
(OR)
Candidates with (i) Postgraduate degree in the subject with a minimum of 50% marks and (ii) M.Phil or Ph.D degree or both, are eligible to apply.
11. Scheme of Selection:
Marks will be awarded to all candidates based on the information given by them in their Application forms, as per the criteria given below:
1
Teaching experience in Universities/Government/aided colleges Maximum /Self financing colleges in the approved post (1 mark for each completed year)
Maximum
15 marks
2
Ph.D. qualification (obtained before 13.10.2006)
12 mark
3
M.Phil/Ph.D with SLET/NET qualification (obtained before 13-10-2006)
6 marks
4
Books/Articles published (referred) in the relevant Subject (2 marks per book and 1 mark per Article)
10 marks
5
Interview marks (Test of Subject knowledge/Teaching ability
7 marks
Total
50 marks
The petitioners were not called for interview on the ground that they have not obtained their M.Phil/Ph.D before 13.10.2006. Aggrieved by this, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the posts of lecturers are filled up on the basis of teaching experience, high qualifications etc., and to secure the post, talent in the academic field is necessary. When that is so, to reject the petitioners’ applications merely on the ground that they had not obtained degrees on a particular date would be to exclude merit. Learned counsel further submitted that with regard to one Kalaiselvi, who had not obtained the M.Phil degree, relaxation has been done as per information, obtained under the Right to Information Act. Even in the affidavit it is specifically alleged that one Suresh, who acquired Ph.D degree in Tamil, was called for interview, though he had not obtained his Ph.D degree before 13.10.2006. Similarly, one Damodaran, who had obtained Master Degree in Physics, had applied for the post of Lecturer in Electronic Science and he had been called for interview, as also one Uma Maheswari. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when, as on date, both the petitioners have obtained the necessary qualifications, they should be called for interview. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per Clause 5 extracted above, it is pertinent to note that the candidates should obtain a Post-Grauate degree in the subject with minimum 55% marks, but M.Phil or Ph.D is only an option and it was also submitted that when that is so, the petitioners could have been called for interview and even if the 6 marks amended for M.Phil/Ph.D with SLET/NET qualification or 12 marks amended for Ph.D. Qualification can be awarded to the petitioners, still their case could have been considered on the basis of the marks they obtained for teaching experience, interview marks and the books and articles published. Learned counsel further submitted that at least, they would have then the satisfaction that their case has been considered on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to various certificates, copies of which have been enclosed in the typed set of papers to show that they are not only qualified academically, but they have been recognised as guides for M.Phil programmes and also external examiners and they have been appointed as members of Board of studies. Therefore, appointment of petitioners as Lecturers will be benefitted to the students and the appointment should not be denied merely on the basis of cut-off date which would be unfair and unjust.
6. Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that on the basis of the petitioners’ own affidavit, it is possible to demonstrate that they are not entitled to any relief. The prospectus would show that the candidates must obtain M.Phil degree before 13.10.2006. The last date for submission of application was 13.10.2006 as seen from paragraph 4 of the affidavit and therefore it is for this reason, 13.10.2006 is fixed as the date. The respondent cannot be asked to entertain applications from persons who had not obtained the requisite qualification as on the date of submission of their applications. Learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that the construction placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners upon the Clause 5 relating to Qualification is not correct. The applicant should have passed PG +M.Phil or PG+ Ph.D or PG+M.Phil+Ph.D. It is not sufficient if the applicant possesses a Post Graduate degree in the subject with 55% marks.
7. Learned Special Government Pleader produced the relevant UGC notification in this regard, which provides as follows:
“Good Academic record with at least 55% of the marks or, an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O,A,B,C,D,E and F at the Master’s degree level, in the relevant subject from an Indian University, or, an equivalent degree from a foreign University, candidates”.
Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates should have cleared the eligibility test (NET) for lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC”.
The amendment to this has been introduced as per which “NET or SLET of an accredited Test shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer for those with post-graduate degree. However, the candidate having Ph.D Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET or SLET or an accredited Test for PG level and UG level teaching. The candidates having M.Phil degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET or SLET or an accredited Test for UG level teaching only”
8. In addition, learned Special Government Pleader referred to the Judgment of the Division Bench dated 24.3.2007 where the proceedings came to be challenged and the Division Bench suggested the following :
Therefore, looked at from any angle, we are convinced that the weightage marks to be awarded to P.G.Degree holders with SLET or NET, M.Phil with SLET or NET and Ph.D. cannot be prescribed with a very wide gap. In that respect even if the proposal of the State Government to provide the weightage marks of 5 for P.G. degree holders with SLET or NET and 6 for M.Phil. candidate with SLET or NET by reducing the weightage marks to the level of 9 for Ph.D degree holders from 12 would meet the ends of justice. To the above we add that the M.Phil holder of pre 31.12.1993 can also be equated with the M.Phil holder with SLET or NET in order to gain the weightage marks of 6 to be prescribed.
34. The learned Advocate General in his submissions also stated that the marks to be awarded under the heading teaching experience is likely to be lowered as 2 marks for each completed year subject to the maximum of 15 marks. Such an alteration in the prescription is quite reasonable and therefore, we do not find any thing wrong in such a proposal of the State Government. Since in our considered opinion the award of 9 marks for Ph.D. degree holders would be more appropriate, the excess 3 marks can be added to the interview marks of 7 by making it as 10 so that the selection committee will be in a better and comfortable position to assess the suitability of candidates based on the relevant criteria prescribed in the U.G.C.Regulations, namely, aptitude for teaching and research, ability to communicate clearly and effectively and ability to analyse the discussion which would be much more relevant criteria while making the selection from among the eligible candidates for the post of Lecturers.
35. With the above modification in the award of marks, namely, the provision of 9 marks for Ph.D degree holders and enhancing the interview marks from 7 to 10 and also providing 5 marks for the holders of P.G.degree with SLET or NET and 6 marks for M.Phil candidates with SLET or NET with the maximum of 15 marks for experience and 5 marks for research contribution, books, articles published will be more appropriate while going in for the selection of candidates for the post of Lecturers.
39. In the result, W.P.Nos. 32958 and 36972 of 2006 and all the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. All the other writ petitions are partly allowed and while setting aside the prescription of marks as prescribed in paragraph 6(e) of G.O.Ms.No.197, dated 05.07.2006 as amended in the Letter dated 11.08.2006 as well as paragraph 11 of the prospectus annexed to the Advertisement No.4/2006-07, the First respondent State is directed to issue suitable amended notification as directed in paragraphs 33 to 35 of this Order. Consequently connected pending Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.”
9. Pursuant thereto, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.106 dated 14.5.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.146, Higher Education (F2) Department dated 1.6.2007. Accordingly, the Government modified para 6(e) of the G.O.M.No.197, Higher
Education, dated 5.7.2006 as amended in the Government letter No.6673/F2/2006-6 dated 11.8.2006 as follows:
1
For teaching experience in Universities /Government/aided Colleges/self financing colleges in the approved post including the teaching experience ) in the relevant subject) of the candidates in Medical/Engineering/Law Colleges.
(2 marks for each year subject to maximum of 15 marks) 15 marks 2 For Ph.D qualification in the concerned subject 9 marks 3 For M.Phil with SLET/NET (or) persons who have completed M.Phil degree prior to 31st December,1993 6 marks 4 PG degree with SLET/NET 5 marks 5 Research contribution/Books/Article Published 5 marks 6 Interview marks 10 marks Total 50 marks 10.Subsequently, by to G.O.Ms.No.146 Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 1.6.2007, it was decided as follows: VERNACULAR ( TAMIL ) PORTION DELETED Therefore, instead of 13.10.2006, 20.10.2006 is fixed as cut-off date and it was decided that fresh application need not be called for.
11. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that therefore even going by the Division Bench order, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any right. As regards the allegation that certain persons were called for interview contrary to the conditions which are relied on by the Government to deny the petitioners’ right to be called for interview, Mr.G.Sankaran , learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that it is true that the said Kalaiselvi was called for interview because her name was omitted to be deleted, but subsequently it was found that she did not satisfy the condition with reference to acquisition of qualification before the cut-off period. Therefore, she was not called for interview. As regards Mr.Damodaran, it was submitted that since he has not obtained the Post graduate degree in the said subject viz., Electronic science, but he had obtained Post graduate degree in Physics, his application was also not considered. Learned counsel also produced the list of provisional selected candidates for appointment and they are as follows:
1. *F19120004 -V.Nagaraj
2. *F19110024 -Balaji Prasad M
3. *F19110004 – R.Mahendran
4. *F19110001 – S.Kalidass
5. *F19110014 -Sri Devi A P
6. *F19180002 -Rajesh Kanna G
The names mentioned by the petitioners in the affidavit as ‘un qualified persons” called for interview, do not find place in the list.
12. As regards the merits of the matter, admittedly, the date of application is 13.10.2006. Therefore, the respondents are entitled to fix that as the date for possessing requisite qualification. When the application clearly stipulates the requirement of M.Phil or P.hd degree or both, both the petitioners ought to have obtained such qualification on the date of application, but they did not have the requisite qualification. The construction placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on Clause 5 of the prospectus cannot be accepted. The said clause can only be read that all the candidates other than SC/ST, should possess 55% in Post-graduate degree in the subject and M.Phil or Ph.D degree or both. It is admitted that both are highly qualified, but on the date of calling for interview, the petitioners’ did not have M.Phil degree or Ph.D degree. Of course, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they had submitted their thesis much earlier,but their guide had caused delay. Such a submission cannot add weight to the petitioners’ case. The fact remains that on the last date for submission of application i.e. on 13.10.2006, the petitioners did not possess the requirement of M.Phil degree or Ph.D degree. Even assuming that their allegations against other persons who were selected without qualification, is true, because they are not made as parties, I am not dealing with that. In any event, it is submitted by Mr.G.Sankaran learned Additional Government Pleader that they were not selected and the statement is accepted. If they are aggrieved by the selection of any unqualified candidates, they can challenge the same in the manner known to law. But, on that ground, the petitioners, who did not possess the requisite qualification on the date of application, cannot claim as a matter of right that their application should be considered and they should be called for interview.
13. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.2 of 2007 is also dismissed.
VJY
To
1.The Secretary to Govt.
Higher Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Chairman,
The Teachers Recruitment Board,
EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound,
College Road,
Chennai 600 006.