V.S.Gowri vs 2 The Registrar on 12 February, 2010

0
44
Madras High Court
V.S.Gowri vs 2 The Registrar on 12 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.2.2010

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN 

Writ Petition No.26109 OF 2009

     V.S.GOWRI                                    PETITIONER  


          Vs

1    THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU                        
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT  
     HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT  
	ST. GEORGE FORT 
     CHENNAI-9.

2    THE REGISTRAR 
     ANNA UNIVERSITY  SARDAR PATEL ROAD  
	CHENNAI- 25.						  RESPONDENTS  




Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to select candidate for appointment as lecturer in the Institute for Ocean Management Anna University in pursuance of the advertisement in Advertisement No.001/PR15/2009 dated 12.2.2009 and the final interview held on 6.10.2009 and consider the appointment of the petitioner for the said post.
	 For petitioner  	:  Mr.J.Antony Jesus
	 For respondents 	:  Mr.R.Murali 
					   Government Advocate for R1
					   Mr.V.Govardhanan for R2

O  R D E R

	The petitioner has stated that she had joined in service, as a Technical Assistant, on 12.5.1986. As such, she has been working in the Institute of Ocean management, in Anna University, Chennai, for the past 23 years. She had also obtained a Ph.D., degree from Anna University, Chennai, in the year, 1998. While so, the second respondent had published an advertisement in the news papers, on 12.2.2009, calling for applications for six posts of Lecturers, in civil engineering. The petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer, in the Institute of Ocean management, to be selected from the open pool. She has been called for a written examination, conducted on 4.10.2009. Thereafter, she was asked to attend for the presentation, on 5.10.2009. The final interview had been held, on 6.10.2009. Thereafter, the second respondent had selected five candidates, for the posts of lecturers, in civil engineering. However, the second respondent had omitted to select the sixth candidate for the post of lecturer, which was meant for the Institute of Ocean Management. 

	2. The petitioner has further stated that she is the senior most candidate in the University, with all the necessary educational qualifications. Though the petitioner is fully qualified, for being appointed as a lecturer in the Institute for Ocean management, she had not been selected by the second respondent. Such non-selection is arbitrary and illegal. 

	3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the non-selection of the petitioner, by the second respondent, is a mockery of the entire selection process. The second respondent had failed to select the petitioner, as a lecturer, for the Institute of Ocean Management, Anna University, even though she had possessed all the necessary qualifications. The petitioner has also the experience of 23 years of service in the said institute. When the second respondent had selected the candidates for the five posts of lecturers, there is no reason as to why the petitioner had not been selected for the sixth post of lecturer for the Institute of Ocean Management. Such non- selection is contrary to the legitimate expectation of the petitioner and it is an infringement of her fundamental right to employment. 

	4. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had placed before this Court the minutes of the meeting of the selection committee, held on 6.10.2009. From the minutes of the said meeting, it is seen that the committee had resolved to recommend six of the candidates for being appointed as lecturers, to the syndicate, as per the merit and the communal reservation, that was being followed for such selection. The particulars of the selected candidates are furnished as shown below:

Roster
Sl.
No.
Name of the candidate
Community
Starting pay recommended
GT (1)
selected
40
V.Ramji
OC
As per norms
Wait listed
38
G.Thiyagarajan
MBC
As per norms
SC(1)
Selected
55
R.Kanmani Shanmuga Priya
SC
As per norms
Wait listed
-

MBC (1)
Selected
19
Lenin Kalyana Sundaram
MBC
As per norms
Wait listed
17
M.Thanmanaselvi
MBC
As per norms
BC (1)
Selected
69
Soorya Vennila
BC
As per norms
Wait listed

GT(W)(1)
Selected
26
S.Rahima Shabeen
BC(M)
As per norms
Wait listed
4
Shirley Benjamin
BC
As per norms
SC(W)(1)
selected

No one found suitable

Wait listed
..

5. From the above particulars furnished by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, it is seen that, for the sixth post of lecturer, no candidate was found to be suitable in the category of ‘Scheduled Castes Woman’, as it was meant for a woman belonging to the scheduled castes.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer, as per the advertisement issued by the second respondent, dated 12.2.2009, from the open pool.

7. In such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to claim that she should have been considered for being appointed as a lecturer for the Institute of Ocean Management in Anna University, Chennai, as she was not belonging to the ‘Scheduled Castes woman category. Even if the petitioner was fully qualified for being selected as a lecturer, she could not be accommodated by the second respondent in the sixth post, which was meant for scheduled castes woman, as per the communal reservation. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to show that she has the right to be appointed, as claimed by her. As such, the principles of legitimate expectation cannot be applied to the present case. Having participated in the process of selection, it would not be open to the petitioner to find fault with the same, after she had learnt that she was not selected as a lecturer for the Institute of Ocean Management, in Anna University, Chennai.

8. In such circumstances, as the writ petition filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.

12.2.2010

Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/no

lan

To:

1    THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT  
	THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU                        
     HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT  
	ST. GEORGE FORT 
     CHENNAI-9.

2    THE REGISTRAR 

ANNA UNIVERSITY SARDAR PATEL ROAD
CHENNAI- 25.

M.JAICHANDREN J.,

lan

Writ Petition No.26109 OF 2009

12.2.2010

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here