{"id":262316,"date":"2006-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006"},"modified":"2014-01-25T07:13:45","modified_gmt":"2014-01-25T01:43:45","slug":"rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"Rev.Dr.Arul Arasu Israel vs The Governing Council Of The on 28 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Rev.Dr.Arul Arasu Israel vs The Governing Council Of The on 28 July, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED: 28\/07\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI\n\n\nW.P.(MD)No.4812 of 2006\nand\nW.P.M.P.(MD)Nos.1,2,3,4 of 2006\n\n\nRev.Dr.Arul Arasu Israel\t\t... \tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nVs.\n\t\n\n1.The Governing Council of the\n  American College,\n  Represented by the Chairman,\n  The Bishop,\n  The American College, Tallakulam,\n  Madurai-2.\n\n2.Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar,\n  Principal and Secretary,\n  The American College,\n  Madurai-2.\n\n3.The American College,\n  Madurai, represented\n  by its,\n  Principal and Secretary\n\n4.The Registrar,\n  Madurai Kamaraj University,\n  Palkalai Nagar,\n  Madurai - 2.\n\n5.The Joint Director of Collegiate\n  Education,\n  Shenoy Nagar,\n  Madurai-2.\n\n\nPRAYER\n\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India\npraying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the\nrecords relating to the impugned notice dated 23.05.2006 issued by the third\nrespondent the Principal and Secretary of the American Ciollege mentioning that\nthe Governing Council Meeting held on 22.05.2006 has chosen and appointed\nDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, Head Department of Religion, Philosophy and\nSociology as Principal and Secretary of the American College and quash the same\nand directing the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner as the Principal and\nSecretary of the 3rd respondent college.\n\n\n\n!For Petitioner   \t...\tMr.K.Vellaiswamy\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n^For Respondents\t... \tMr.Issac Mohanlal\n1-3\n\nFor 4th Respondent   \t...\tMr.S.Chandrasekaran\t\n\nFor 5th Respondent   \t...\tMr.K.Bhaskaran,\n\t\t\t\tAdditional Government Pleader.\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis writ petition is filed challenging the notice issued by the third
\nrespondent dated 23.05.2006 stating that as per the first respondent Governing
\nCounsel of American College, in the meeting held on 22.05.2006, the second
\nrespondent Head of Department of Religion, Philosophy and sociology, has been
\nchosen and appointed as a Principal and Secretary and that he will assume office
\non the first June of 2006.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The writ petitioner has joined in the third respondent college as
\nLecturer in the year 1987 in the Department of Religion, Philosophy and
\nSociology having his qualification M.A.(Philosophy), M.A.(Psychology) and M.A.
\n(Gandhian Thought), M.Phil, B.D. and Ph.D. He was promoted as Reader in the year
\n1988 and is working in the said capacity as on date under the third respondent
\ncollege.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The third respondent college is an aided minority Grade-I college
\ngoverned by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and
\nRules made thereunder except those provisions which are not applicable to the
\nminority institutions.  According to the petitioner, the second respondent
\njoined services as Lecturer in the third respondent college in the year 1985 and
\nhe got Ph.D only in the year 2006 while the petitioner has got Ph.D in the year
\n1992 itself and working as Reader for the past eight years from 1998 onwards and
\ntherefore, the second respondent is junior to the petitioner in the cadre of
\nReader.  On retirement of previous incumbent as the Principal on 31.05.2006,
\nwhen the vacancy arose, the first respondent Governing Council in its meeting
\nheld on 22.05.2000 has chosen to appoint the second respondent as Principal cum
\nSecretary.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. According to the petitioner, even though, in the master degree he has
\ngot more than 55% of marks, the second respondent is having less than that mark
\nand therefore, he was not qualified for being considered to the post of
\nPrincipal.  Therefore, the very appointment of the second respondent even as
\nLecturer is illegal.   According to the petitioner, since the second respondent
\nwas appointed as Lecturer even in the year 1985, is bound by the qualifications
\nprescribed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the  G.O.Ms.No.1052 Education and
\nScience and Technology (G11) Department dated 7.10.1983 wherein the
\nqualification prescribed for the post of lecturer is 55% marks in the Post
\nGraduate degree.   The second respondent is having less than that 55% and
\ntherefore, he has not qualified and he should not have been considered for the
\npost of Principal and Secretary at all in the third respondent college and that
\nappointment is not valid in law.  The petitioner also would submit that by
\nsubsequent G.O.Ms.No.345 Higher Education (H1) Department dated 03.10.2005, the
\nqualification and eligibility for the post of Principal has been issued by
\namending G.O.Ms.No.111 and 55% minimum marks was required in the master degree.
\nTherefore, in view of the subsequent Government order which is also binding on
\nthe third respondent, the second respondent has no qualification and his
\nappointment is not only against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private
\nColleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 but also against the Government order issued
\nprescribing qualification for the post of the Principal.  As per the revised
\nnorms fixed as stated above, the G.O.Ms.No.111 Higher Education (H1) Department
\ndated 24.3.1999 was amended by G.O.Ms.No.345 Higher Education (H1) 03.10.2005
\nunder which for the post of Principal in Grade-I College the following
\nqualification has been prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
\t“1. A masters degree with at least 55% of marks or its equivalent grade
\n“B” in the seven point scale.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Ph.D or equivalent qualification\n<\/p>\n
\t3. A minimum total experience of 15 years of teaching \/ research in
\nUniversities \/ Colleges and other institutions of Higher Education”.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. According to the petitioner, the said Government order also
\nspecifically states that all the universities are to adopt the above said
\nqualification uniformly while approving the qualification of all Principals in
\nGovernment aided colleges.  Inasmuch as, the said revised norms have come into
\neffect from the date of the Government Order namely, 03.10.2005, the appointment
\nof the second respondent is against the said Government order and is liable to
\nbe set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. On the other hand, the respondents 1 to 3 have  filed their counter
\naffidavit.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. According to the respondents, the writ petition is not maintainable.
\nThe third respondent is a minority educational institution having been
\nestablished in the year 1881, and the same is affiliated to the fourth
\nrespondent Madurai Kamaraj University.  The college was conferred  autonomous
\nstatus from 1978 by the University and it has been accredited as a college with
\nFive Star status.  While it is admitted that the third respondent college is an
\naided college by the Government, it is stated that the third respondent college
\nis also running unaided courses under self financing pattern.  When a vacancy
\narose in the post of Principal in the third respondent college power vested with
\nthe first respondent Governing Counsel.  The Governing counsel consisting of
\neminent persons unanimously appointed  a three member committee to select the
\ncandidate with<\/p>\n
   i) Rt.Rev.Dr.A.Christopher Asir – Bishop – Chairman<\/p>\n
  ii)Dr.Sempon David\t\t     – Former Director of
\n\t\t\t\tMedical Education, Govt. of Tamil Nadu<\/p>\n
 iii)Rev.Father Lawrence Amalraj – Former Principal,
\nArulanadar College, Madurai (autonomous)<\/p>\n
\t8. The sub committee has considered the candidature of all the eligible
\npersons working in the third respondent college. It is also specifically stated
\nby the third respondent that in addition to the eligible candidates working in
\nthe third respondent college outsiders were also invited for consideration with
\nthe aim of finding out the best suitable person for the said post.  The sub
\ncommittee after a thorough and elaborate consideration of the candidates has
\nrecommended the name of the second respondent in the first ranking.  Even
\nthough, in the counter affidavit it is stated that the second respondent was
\nhaving Ph.D degree in Sociology in the year 2002-2005 obtained from Madurai
\nKamaraj University, M.Phil degree in the year 1984-85 having obtained from
\nGandhigram Rural Institute (Deemed University),  M.A. in Sociology in the year
\n1981-1983 at S.V.Universty, M.A. Social Work in the year 1973-1975 in Madurai
\nUniversity and B.Sc Physics in the year 1970-1973 in Madurai University, without
\nmentioning the marks obtained by the second respondent in his Post graduate
\ndegree, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 would fairly admit the
\nfactual position that the second respondent has not got 55% of marks in his Post
\ngraduate degree as prescribed in the above said Government order and he in fact
\nobtained the marks 53.5% and 58.2% in M.A. Sociology and M.A. Social work
\nrespectively.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. That apart, it is the case of the respondents 1 to 3 that the second
\nrespondent having worked for more than 25 years as Assistant Professor in
\nvarious grades and involved in the National Level Projects with administrative
\nexperience of more than 9 years as Head of the Department both at Post Graduate
\nand under graduate levels, having been worked as a Member of the college Senate
\nand also obtained training from the University Grants Commission and therefore,
\nwas found by the Committee to be the fit person to the post as a Principal of
\nthe third respondent college.  After the appointment of the second respondent,
\nthe first respondent has sent the proposals to the 5th respondent  Joint
\nDirector of Collegiate Education on 01.06.2006 for giving approval of the
\nappointment of the second respondent for the purpose of disbursement of grant-
\nin-aid towards the salary and also for approving him  as a Secretary of the
\ncollege.  The third respondent college has also submitted proposals to the
\nfourth respondent University on 01.06.2006 for approving the qualification of
\nthe second respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. While admitting that the petitioner is working in the third respondent
\ncollege as Reader from the year 1987 it is stated that the petitioner was not
\nmade as Reader from the 1988 but was only placed in the cadre of Reader in the
\nyear 1990 and the second respondent is senior to the writ petitioner. Further,
\nthe allegation that the second respondent was not qualified for the post of
\nPrincipal is denied. It is stated that the second respondent is appointed as
\nLecturer in the year 1985 with full educational qualification and the same was
\napproved by the university as also the Director of Collegiate Education.
\nAccording to the respondents 1 to 3, the requirement of 55% minimum marks in the
\nPost Graduate degree is intended for the appointment after 1991 whereas the
\nsecond respondent was appointed as a Lecturer even in the year 1985.  The fourth
\nrespondent has approved the appointment of the second respondent as Lecturer as
\nearly as on 26.11.1986.  According to the respondents 1 to 3, the minimum
\nqualification of 55% marks required in the Government order is not applicable to
\nthe second respondent who was appointed as Lecturer much earlier in 1985.
\nFurther, according to the respondents 1 to 3, the second respondent is fully
\nqualified as per the qualification is prescribed by the University Grants
\nCommission and Madurai Kamaraj University.  The said respondents would also
\nspecifically state that the State Government has no competence to prescribe any
\nqualification, while qualification prescribed only by the University and
\nUniversity Grants Commission.  There is no inherent disqualification on the part
\nof the second respondent.  While admitting that the third respondent college is
\nbound by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 to
\nthe extent that except those provisions which are not applicable to the minority
\ninstitutions, it is stated that the appointment of the second respondent is well
\nwithin the powers contemplated under the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Mr. K.Vellaisamy, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner by
\nplacing reliance on the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.111  Higher Education (H1)
\nDepartment dated 24.03.1999 would submit that the said Government order itself
\nwas passed based on the qualification prescribed by the University Grants
\nCommission.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The learned counsel also placing reliance on the judgment of this
\nCourt rendered in Dr.S.Arulmani Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its
\nSecretary and Commissioner, Department of Higher Education, Chennai and others
\nreported in 2006 Writ L.R.390 to substantiate his contention that this Court has
\nheld categorically that the  qualification prescribed under G.O.Ms.111 dated
\n24.03.1999 was issued in accordance with the regulations framed by the
\nUniversity Grants Commission and the said Government order   which is issued by
\nvirtue of the power conferred on the State Government under Article 162<\/a> of the
\nConstitution of India is in consonance with the University Grants Commission’s
\nregulations, and therefore, it cannot be said that the Government order is not
\nbinding upon the colleges.  The learned counsel also would state that the
\ncategoric pronouncement of this Court in the above said judgment that the State
\nGovernment passed the Government order has a statutory backing by the Central
\nenactment and the said judgment has put an end to any controversy about the
\napplicability or otherwise of the said Government order to the aided colleges.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The learned counsel would also submit that the subsequent Government
\norder namely, G.O.Ms.No.345 Higher Education (H1) Department dated 03.10.2005
\nwhile issuing the amendment order to G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 24.03.1999 has
\nreaffirmed the qualification of principals in Grade-I, Grade-II colleges stating
\nthat a masters degree with 55% of marks is a condition precedent.  The learned
\ncounsel also would submit that inasmuch as the impugned order of the first
\nrespondent dated 01.06.2006 which run as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“This is to report that the Governing Council of the American College,
\nMadurai, after considering the merits and abilities of all the applicants,
\nselected and appointed Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar as the Principal &
\nSecretary of the American College,Madurai, from the forenoon of June 1, 2006
\nthrough its resolution No.2\/May\/2006, in its special meeting held on
\n22.05.2006”.\n<\/p>\n
states clearly that the second respondent was “selected and appointed” which
\nmeans that the post of Principal is not a promotional post and it is a selection
\npost.   He would also submit that inasmuch as the respondents 1 to 3 in the
\ncounter affidavit have categorically admitted that not only the eligible
\ncandidates available in the third respondent college for the post of Principal
\nbut also outsiders were called for the purpose of selecting a better person as a
\nPrincipal and therefore, it should be construed only as a selection and
\nappointment and not by promotion.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. When it is the matter of open competition, the condition precedent is
\nthe required educational qualification.  The word “selection and appointment”
\nunder the impugned order shows that it is a new appointment as submitted by the
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The learned counsel also would rely upon the communication of the
\nfourth respondent Universtity dated 13.5.1999 by referring to G.O.111 dated
\n24.03.1999.  The fourth respondent university while stipulating the
\nqualification for the post of principals states that a masters degree with 55%
\nof marks is required qualification.  The further stipulation that the minimum
\nrequirement of 55% of marks need not be insisted upon for the existing
\nincumbents who are already working in the college means those persons who are
\nalready appointed as Principals who are continuing in respect of whom, the 55%
\nof marks need not be insisted upon and that stipulation is only for the purpose
\nof preventing such persons who are already working as Principals from being
\ndisturbed.  The specific word stating that the said marks should be insisted
\nupon to the new entrant shows that for the selection and appointment of person
\nas a Principal as in the present case, all candidates whether considered through
\nthe college or outside should be treated as entrants and therefore, the
\nqualification of 55% of marks is a required condition.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the validity of
\nthe G.O.Ms.No.111 as well as the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.345 has been in fact
\nconsidered by this Court in the above said judgment rendered in Dr.S.Arulmani
\nVs. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary and Commissioner, Department
\nof Higher Education, Chennai and others reported in 2006 Writ L.R.390, and held
\nvalid.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. On the other hand, Mr. Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the
\nrespondents 1 to 3 would vehemently submit that a reference to the G.O.Ms.No.111
\nor G.O.Ms.No.345 has no relevancy for the reason that even though the Government
\nis giving aid to the third respondent college, the State Government has no
\nauthority to prescribe qualification in respect of the teachers to be appointed
\nin the aided colleges which include the post of Principal also.  He would submit
\nthat even though, the G.O.Ms.No.111 refers about the letter of the University
\nGrants Commission, the notification of the University Grants Commission in
\nrespect of appointment  and career advancement of teachers in the universities
\nand colleges issued on 04.04.2000 shows that the regulation is mandatory in
\nnature and all the universities are expected to follow.  The University Grants
\nCommission regulation which is having statutory force since the same has been
\nframed in accordance with the powers conferred under Section 26(1)(e) and (g)
\nread with Section 14<\/a> of the University Grants Commission Act 1956 and therefore,
\nthe qualification insisted under the said University Grants Commission
\nregulations will supersede the Government order in G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 345 passed
\nby virtue of the powers conferred under Article 162<\/a> Constitution of India to the
\nState Government.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. According to the learned counsel, the University Grants Commission
\nregulation which contemplates the qualification for the purpose of Principals
\nand professors in Grade – I college as M.A. degree with at least 55% of marks or
\nits equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with letter grades O,A,B,C,D,E &
\nF etc.  The notes annexured to the said regulation contemplates the provision
\nthat the said minimum requirement of 55% of marks shall not be insisted upon the
\nPrincipals etc., for the existing incumbents who are also in the university
\nsystem and therefore, according to the learned counsel, inasmuch as, the second
\nrespondent is also in services of the third respondent his qualification having
\nbeen approved even as early as on 1985 by the competent university, by virtue of
\nthe said notes under the said regulation, the second respondent is eligible to
\nbe appointed and the same cannot be questioned.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. According to the learned counsel, while making the analogy in respect
\nof Bharathidasan University stating that the said university has adopted the
\nUniversity Grants Commission regulation in its statutes.  Even if the fourth
\nrespondent University has not adopted the said regulation in its statute, by
\nvirtue of the letter of the fourth respondent university dated 13.05.1999, the
\nminimum requirement of 55% of marks need not be insisted upon for the existing
\nincumbents who are already in college  which according to the learned counsel
\nfor the respondents 1 to 3 means that the second respondent having been working
\nin the third respondent college, the 55% of marks need not be insisted upon.
\nThe learned counsel also would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court
\nrendered in      reported in 1999 (4) SCC 720 for the proposition that inasmuch
\nas the university is a separate entity, any rules framed by the Government are
\nnot applicable unless they are specifically adopted by the University in
\naccordance with the provisions of the statutes of the concerned university.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. In the present case, according to the learned counsel for the
\nrespondents 1 to 3, by applying the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt, the applicability of G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 345 cannot be automatically
\npresumed to the fourth respondent university, if the fourth respondent
\nuniversity has not adopted the said Government order. He would also rely upon
\nanother judgment of this Court in the Association of Managements Private
\nColleges represented by its General Secretary Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu
\nrepresented by its Secretary Department of Education, Chennai -9 and another
\nreported in 2000 (4) CTC 641 for the proposition that the university alone has
\ngot power to make regulation regarding the qualification for the post of
\nPrincipal while construing the various provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private
\nColleges (Regulation) Act.  The learned counsel has also relied upon another
\njudgment of this Court rendered in Suresh Manohar and another Vs. The State of
\nTamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government,      Chennai-9 and others
\nreported in 2003 (4) CTC 1  wherein while construing the provisions of the Tamil
\nNadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act 1976, this Court has held that the powers
\nof the Government to issue any direction can only be in respect of the matters
\nwhich are not covered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges
\nAct, 1976.  That was the case wherein, the college committee has been conferred
\nwith the power of disciplinary proceedings against the teachers and in that
\ncircumstance, the Government rules cannot be made applicable.  The learned
\ncounsel would also place reliance on the other judgment of this Court in
\nS.Mohamood Basha Vs. Director of Collegiate Education Chennai-6 and others
\nreported in 2002 (3) CTC 336 holding that the rules of the Tamil Nadu State
\nSubordinate Service cannot be recorded as statutory so far as the employees of
\naided colleges are concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. The reliance was also placed on the judgment reported in Vinayaka
\nMission’s Kirupananda Variyar Medical College, Main Road, Salem rep. by its
\nRegistrar, Sponsored by Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara
\nSwamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust Vs.               The Tamil
\nNadu Dr. MGR Medical University, rep. by its Registrar, Chennai and another
\nreported in 2005 (2) CTC 772 to support his contention that the Government Order
\ncannot be insisted upon when the statutes of the university prescribed some
\nother method.  According to the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, the
\nsecond respondent being senior to the petitioner as stated in the counter
\naffidavit, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in the appointment of the
\nsecond respondent as a Principal of the third respondent college.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. Mr.S.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the university namely, fourth
\nrespondent would also submit that as per the qualification prescribed by the
\nuniversity which is in accordance with the University Grants Commission
\nregulations, the 55% of marks is required in the post graduate level is not
\ninsisted to those persons already in services of the concerned college and
\ntherefore, according to the learned counsel for the university\/fourth
\nrespondent, it cannot be said that the second respondent has no qualification.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. Mr.K.Vellaisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend  by
\nway of reply that even assuming that the 55% of marks requirement need not be
\ninsisted in respect of  persons are already in service but at the same time, the
\nsaid 55% of marks from outside candidates who are also equally situated for the
\npurpose of selection and appointment to the post of Principal and therefore,
\nsuch a differential treatment will be arbitrary and has to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. The learned counsel also would state that while admittedly, three
\noutsiders were called for there is absolutely no rationale behind the
\napprehension that they should have  better qualification than the teachers
\nalready working in the third respondent college.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. I have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner as also for the
\nrespondents 1 to 4 apart from the learned Additional government Pleader and
\nperused entire records.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. In this case, the simple question that has to be considered is as to
\nwhether the second respondent appointed as Principal of the third respondent
\ncollege is having required qualification or not.  Admittedly, the third
\nrespondent college is a minority aided college governed by the provisions of the
\nTamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and Rules made thereunder except
\nthose provisions which are not applicable to the minority institutions.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. In respect of qualifications of the teaches and other persons employed
\nin the private colleges, the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976
\nunder Section 15<\/a> contemplates, the University to frame rules and regulations.
\nThe said section runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“15.Qualifications of teachers and other persons employed in private
\ncolleges:-\n<\/p>\n
\t1) The University may make regulations, statutes or ordinances specifying
\nthe qualifications required for the appointment of teachers, persons employed in
\nany private college.\n<\/p>\n
\t2) The Government may make rules specifying the qualifications required
\nfor appointment to any post, other than teachers, in any private college.”
\nTherefore, it has to be seen as to whether the fourth respondent which is an
\naffiliating university of the third respondent college, even though, the same
\nhas been conferred the autonomous status, has framed any regulations in respect
\nof qualifications, regarding the teachers employed in the colleges affiliated to
\nit.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. The Madurai Kamaraj University Act of 1965, by virtue of which the
\nfourth respondent has come into existence, while dealing with the powers of the
\nsyndicate of the fourth respondent university imposes a power on it to prescribe
\nqualifications of teachers in university colleges, affiliated colleges and
\napproved colleges in consultation with the academic council.  Section 20(14) of
\nthe Madurai Kamaraj University Act 1965 which runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“20(14). to prescribe, in consultation with the Academic Council, the
\nqualifications of teachers in University colleges, affiliated and approved
\ncolleges and hostels”\n<\/p>\n
\t29. It is in accordance with the powers conferred under the said
\nprovision, the fourth respondent has in fact prescribed qualifications for the
\nteachers of affiliated colleges including the principal, as seen in the
\ncommunication of the fourth respondent university dated 13.05.1999 to all the
\nprincipals of Arts and Science Colleges referring to the minutes of the meeting
\nof Syndicate held on 24.04.1999.  The said letter also refer to the
\nG.O.Ms.No.111 date 24.03.1999.  The qualification prescribed for the post of
\nprincipals in the aided colleges as seen in the letter of the fourth respondent
\ndated 13.05.1999 is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“2.Principal\n<\/p>\n
\t  i) A Masters degree with atleast 55% of marks or its equivalent grade
\n‘B’ in the seven point scale, (Grade B Good, Grade point 3.50-4.49, percentage
\nequivalent 55-64).\n<\/p>\n
\t   The minimum requirement of 55% need not be insisted upon for the
\nexisting incumbent who are already in the colleges.  However, these marks should
\nbe insisted upon for the new entrants.\n<\/p>\n
\tii) A relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 51% of the marks, at
\nthe Masters Level to the S.C.\/S.T. categories.\n<\/p>\n
\tiii) A relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of the marks to
\nthe Ph.D. degree holders who have passed their Masters degree prior to 19th
\nSeptember 1991.\n<\/p>\n
\tiv) Ph.D., or equivalent qualification.\n<\/p>\n
\tv) A minimum total experience of 15 years of teaching\/research in
\nUniversities\/Colleges and other institutions of Higher Education.”\n<\/p>\n
\t30. Since the said qualification prescribed by the fourth respondent
\nuniversity refers to G.O.Ms.No.111 Higher Education (H1 Department) dated
\n24.03.1999, the said Government order in the Annexure II prescribing the
\neducational qualification for the post of lecturers, senior lecturers and
\nprincipals of the Government and aided colleges. In respect of the post of
\nPrincipals in Grade I and II colleges, the said Government order stipulates the
\nqualification as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“2.Principals(Grade-I)\n<\/p>\n
\ti) A Masters degree with at least 55% of marks of its equivalent grade “B”
\nin the seven point scale.\n<\/p>\n
\tii) Ph.D., or equivalent qualification\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)A minimum total experience of 15 yeas of teaching \/ research in
\nUniversities\/ colleges and other institutions of Higher Education.
\nPrincipals (Grade-II)\n<\/p>\n
\ti) A Masters degree with at least 55% of marks of its equivalent grade “B”
\nin the seven point scale.\n<\/p>\n
\tii) Ph.D., or equivalent qualification\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)A minimum total experience of 10 years of teaching\/research in
\nUniversities\/ colleges and other institutions of Higher Education.
\nExplanation:\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever, the Principals of Government colleges are presently being placed
\nin two grades on the basis of the following criteria. Professor grade Principals
\nare posted to colleges with at least two P.G. courses and a student strength of
\nnot less than 1000.  Reader grade principals are posted to other colleges.
\n\tAppointment to the post of Principals is being made from among the holders
\nof posts of Lecturers (Selection grade \/ Reader) in colleges.  The seniority as
\nSelection Grade Lecturer is the criteria, for promotion.  This system which is
\nvogue since 1989 will continue in Government colleges”.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. The said Government order was subsequently amended by G.O.Ms.No.345
\nHigher Education (H1 Department) dated 03.10.2005 however without affecting
\nqualifications prescribed for the post of Principal.  The said G.O.Ms.No.345 in
\nrespect of the qualification for the post of Principals runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“2.Principals(Grade-I)\n<\/p>\n
\ti) A Masters degree with at least 55% of marks of its equivalent grade “B”
\nin the seven point scale.\n<\/p>\n
\tii) Ph.D., or equivalent qualification\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)A minimum total experience of 15 yeas of teaching \/ research in
\nUniversities\/ colleges and other institutions of Higher Education.
\nPrincipals (Grade-II)\n<\/p>\n
\ti) A Masters degree with at least 55% of marks of its equivalent grade “B”
\nin the seven point scale.\n<\/p>\n
\tii) Ph.D., or equivalent qualification\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)A minimum total experience of 10 years of teaching\/research in
\nUniversities\/ colleges and other institutions of Higher Education.
\nExplanation:\n<\/p>\n
\ti) However, the Principals of Government colleges are presently being
\nplaced in two grades on the basis of the following criteria. Grade-I Principals
\nare posted to colleges with atleast two P.G. courses and a student strength of
\nnot less than 1000 in regular courses of study.  Grade-II Principals are posted
\nto other colleges.\n<\/p>\n
\tii) Appointment to the post of Principals is being made from among the
\nholders of posts of Lecturers (Selection Grade \/ Reader) in colleges.  The
\nseniority as Selection Grade Lecturer is the criteria for promotion.\n<\/p>\n
\tiii) For those who have been promoted as Principals from 01.01.1996 to
\ntill the date of issue of this order, Ph.D qualification need not be insisted
\nupon.\n<\/p>\n
\tiv) The decision in respect of implementation of Ph.D qualification for
\nthe promotion as Principal in Government\/Aided Colleges shall be as follows.\n<\/p>\n
\ta) In respect of Lecturers appointed prior to 01.01.1996, the Lecturers
\nmust qualify Ph.D within 6 years from the date of issue of this order.\n<\/p>\n
\tb) If the Lecturers appointed prior to 01.01.1996 and those who have less
\nthan 6 years of left over service to retire, may also be considered for
\npromotion as Principal as per the existing rules.\n<\/p>\n
\tc) For those who have more than 6 years of service, they should acquire
\nPh.D. qualification within 6 years period from the day of issue of this order,
\nfailing which he or she will not be considered after 6 years period for the post
\nof Principal.\n<\/p>\n
\td) In respect of Lecturers appointed on or after 1.1.1996, the prerequiste
\nqualification of Ph.D for promotion as Principal is mandatory.\n<\/p>\n
\te) All Universities in Tamil Nadu may be requested to adopt the above
\nqualifications uniformly while approving qualification of Principals in
\nGovernment \/ Government Aided Colleges.\n<\/p>\n
\tf) These revised norms will come into force with effect from the date of
\nissue of this order.”\n<\/p>\n
\t32. It is relevant to point out that the said Government orders refer
\nabout the communication from the University Grants Commission.\t The
\nUniversity Grants Commission while framing the regulations by virtue of the
\npowers conferred on it under Section 26(1)(e)<\/a>and(g) read with Section 14<\/a> of the
\nUniversity Grants Commission Act, 1956 has prescribed the minimum qualification
\nfor the purpose of professors, principals etc., in the universities, colleges,
\nalong with foot notes which runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“1.0.0 Direct Recruitment
\n 1.1.0 Principal (Professor’s Grade)\n<\/p>\n
\ti) A Masters degree with at least 55% of marks of its equivalent grade “B”
\nin the seven point scale.\n<\/p>\n
\tii) Ph.D., or equivalent qualification\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)A minimum total experience of 15 yeas of teaching \/ research in
\nUniversities\/ colleges and other institutions of Higher Education.
\n1.2.0 Principals (Reader’s Grade)\n<\/p>\n
\ti) A Masters degree with at least 55% of marks of its equivalent grade “B”
\nin the seven point scale.\n<\/p>\n
\tii) Ph.D., or equivalent qualification\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)A minimum total experience of 10 years of teaching\/research in
\nUniversities\/ colleges and other institutions of Higher Education.\n<\/p>\n
\tNotes:\n<\/p>\n
\t1. A relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of the marks at the
\nMaster’s level for the SC\/ST category.\n<\/p>\n
\t2) A relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of the marks to the
\nPh.D degree holders who have passed their Master’s degree prior to 19th
\nSeptember 1991.\n<\/p>\n
\t3) B in the 7 point scale with letter grade O,A,B,C,D,E & F shall be
\nregarded as equivalent of 55% whereever the grading system is followed.\n<\/p>\n
\t4) NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer
\neven for candidates having Ph.D degree.  However, the candidate who have
\ncompleted M.Phil, degree or have submitted Ph.D thesis in the concerned subject
\nup to 31st December, 1993, are exempted from appearing in the NET examination.\n<\/p>\n
\t5) The minimum requirement of 55% shall not be insisted upon for
\nPrincipals, Professors, Readers, Librarians, Deputy Librarians, Directors of
\nPhysical Education and Deputy Directors of Physical Education, for the existing
\nincumbents who are already in the university system.  however, these marks
\nshould be insisted upon for those entering the system from outside and those at
\nthe entry point of Lecturers, Assistant Registrars, Assistant Librarians,
\nAssistant Directors of Physical Education.\n<\/p>\n
\t6) A relaxation of the minimum marks at the PG level from 55% to 50% for
\nappointment as Lecturer may be provided to the candidates who have cleared the
\nJRF examination conducted by UGC\/CSIR only, prior to 1989, when the minimum
\nmarks required to appear for JRF exam were 50%.”\n<\/p>\n
\t33. It is by referring to G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 24.03.1999 and the said
\nqualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission, this Court in the
\njudgment rendered in Dr.S.Arulmani Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu represented
\nby its Secretary, and Commissioner, Department of Higher Education, Chennai and
\nothers reported  in 2006 W L.R 390 has held that there is no contradiction
\nbetween the G.O.Ms.No.111 passed by the State Government by virtue of the powers
\nconferred under Article 162<\/a> Constitution of India and the stipulations of the
\nUniversity Grants Commission regarding the qualification of Principals
\nprescribed by virtue of the powers under Section 26<\/a> of the University Grants
\nCommission Act and thus held that the G.O.Ms.No.111 is applicable.  This Court
\nin categorical terms has held in Para 40 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“In view of the finding that G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 24.03.1999 prescribing
\neducational qualification and the constitution of committee was issued only in
\naccordance with the regulations framed by UGC, the impugned order though issued
\nunder Article 162<\/a> of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as it reproduces the
\nminimum educational qualifications and the constitution of the selection
\ncommittee as per the Regulations, it cannot be said that it is not binding on
\nthe college.  Hence, Point No.1 is answered by holding that the said Government
\nOrder have statutory backing of the Central Enactment and consequently, is
\nbinding on the college.”\n<\/p>\n
\t34. Therefore, a combined reading of the above facts, would show that the
\nqualifications prescribed by the fourth respondent university, University Grants
\nCommission, as well as the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.111 as also the
\nsubsequent G.O.Ms.No.345 are all applicable in the present case and there are
\nabsolutely no contradiction.\n<\/p>\n
\t35. In this regard, the contention of the learned counsel for the
\nrespondents 1 to 3 Mr.Issac Mohanlal that the University Grants Commission
\nstipulations regarding the qualifications for the post of Principal does not
\nprescribe the 55% of marks in the Post Graduate level in respect of the persons
\nwho are already working in the same college but on the other hand such
\nrelaxation are not available under G.O.Ms.No.111 and therefore, the said
\nG.O.Ms.No.111 cannot be made applicable, is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
\t36. A reference to the University Grants Commission stipulations regarding
\nthe qualification of the Principal as enumerated above shows categorically that
\nthe University Grants Commission has also prescribed 55% of marks are equivalent
\nGrade-B in the master degree.  A reference to the notes under the University
\nGrants Commission regulations shows that the minimum requirement of 55% marks
\nshall not be insisted upon for principals in respect of the existing incumbent
\nwho are already in the university system. This term is applicable only in
\nrespect of the persons who are already holding the post of Principal on the date
\nwhen the stipulation has come into effect in respect of qualification for the
\npost of Principals etc., in order to protect the incumbent occupying the post
\nwithout the 55% of marks in the Post Graduate level.  It cannot be construed as
\nif such qualification is not required even for a person who is to be appointed
\nsubsequently as a Principal simply for the reason that such candidate is already
\nworking as a teacher in the same college.  In this regard, the subsequent lines
\nin the said notes which runs as follows is relevant:\n<\/p>\n
\t“However this marks should be insisted upon for those entering system from
\noutside and those at the entry point of lecturers, Assistant Registrars,
\nAssistant Librarians, Assistant  of Physical education,”\n<\/p>\n
\t37. However, in this case, it is relevant to point out that admittedly,
\nthe third respondent has considered not only the eligible candidates working in
\nthe third respondent college for the post of Principal but also outsiders have
\nbeen called for and therefore, it should be treated as a fresh selection and in
\nsuch circumstances, in the post of principals there cannot be two yardsticks
\none lesser qualification for the teachers working in the same college and
\nanother more qualification for the persons to compete from outside.  Such
\nconstruction will only result in an unnecessary discrimination among the equally
\nsituated people who are competing to the post of Principal.   Therefore, I do
\nnot agree the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 that
\nthe exemption of 55% of marks should be construed to the teachers  working in
\nthe third respondent college like the second respondent who has competed to the
\npost of Principal.\n<\/p>\n
\t38. In fact, the stipulation by the University also uses the same word
\nnamely, the minimum requirement of 55% of marks need not be insisted upon for
\nthe existing incumbent who are already in the college.  However, these marks
\nshould be insisting upon for the new entrants.  Even though, the learned counsel
\nappearing for the fourth respondent University has been contending that this has
\nbeen construed by the university in the manner it is contended by the learned
\ncounsel for the respondents 1 to 3, for the reasons I have stated above, such
\ncontentions is not tenable.  I am emboldened to insist by  repeating that such
\nconstruction will only result in discrimination among the equally situated
\npeople and there is absolutely no rationale basis whatsoever in connection with
\nthe object sought to be achieved, namely to select a better person for the post
\nof Principal.\n<\/p>\n
\t39. On the other hand, the purpose of not insisting such 55% of marks was
\nonly to safeguard the interest of the persons holding the post of Principal and
\nother post on the date when stipulation regarding the qualification came into
\nexistence either by University or University Grants Commission.  Therefore, I am
\nof the considered view that the qualification prescribed under the said
\nG.o.Ms.No.111 as also in the University Grants Commission notification apart
\nfrom the University stipulations is very clear that for the post of Principal in
\nGrade-I college, minimum requirement for a candidate is a pass in the Post
\nGraduate with 55% of marks apart from Ph.d and other teaching qualifications.
\nInasmuch as it is admitted by the respondents 1 to 3 that the second respondent
\nis not having the said 55% of marks in the Post Graduate degree, I have
\nabsolutely no hesitation to hold that the second respondent is not qualified as
\nper the qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission and the
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
\t40. By virtue of the decision which I have arrived at there is no
\nnecessity to decide about the qualification of the principal under G.O.Ms.No.111
\nor the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.345 especially in the circumstance that this has
\nbeen the judicial pronouncement and also it is on fact clear that there is
\nreally no contradiction between the Government order prescribing qualification
\nas well as the qualification  prescribed by the University namely, the fourth
\nrespondent apart from the qualification  prescribed the University Grants
\nCommission for the post of the Principal in Grade I College.\n<\/p>\n
\t41. One another aspect is to be considered in this case is as to whether
\nthese stipulations are applicable to the third respondent which is a minority
\ncollege. It is not even the case of the respondents 1 to 3 that by virtue of the
\nminority status, the third respondent need not follow the  qualification
\nprescribed for the purpose of teachers including the principal. Even assuming
\nthat such argument is advanced, in my considered view the same is not tenable,
\nfor, qualification for the post of teachers cannot be compromised at any cost.
\nEven a minority institution is to follow the qualification prescribed for the
\npost of like Principal, lecturers,etc.,<\/p>\n
\t42. In view of the reasons stated above and looking into any angle, I am
\nof the considered view that the impugned notice issued by the third respondent
\ndated 23.05.2006 is not valid in the eye of law and is quashed and the writ
\npetition stands allowed with a direction to the  first respondent to initiate
\ndue process for the selection and appointment of the Principal under the third
\nrespondent college.  No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Governing Council of the
\n  American College,
\n  Represented by the Chairman,
\n  The Bishop,
\n  The American College, Tallakulam,
\n  Madurai-2.\n<\/p>\n
2.Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar,
\n  Principal and Secretary,
\n  The American College,
\n  Madurai-2.\n<\/p>\n
3.The American College,
\n  Madurai, represented
\n  by its,
\n  Principal and Secretary<\/p>\n
4.The Registrar,
\n  Madurai Kamaraj University,
\n  Palkalai Nagar,
\n  Madurai – 2.\n<\/p>\n
5.The Joint Director of Collegiate
\n  Education,
\n  Shenoy Nagar,
\n  Madurai-2.\n<\/p>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Rev.Dr.Arul Arasu Israel vs The Governing Council Of The on 28 July, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28\/07\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD)No.4812 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.(MD)Nos.1,2,3,4 of 2006 Rev.Dr.Arul Arasu Israel … Petitioner Vs. 1.The Governing Council of the American College, Represented by the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-262316","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRev.Dr.Arul Arasu Israel vs The Governing Council Of The on 28 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rev.Dr.Arul Arasu Israel vs The Governing Council Of The on 28 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-25T01:43:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rev.Dr.Arul Arasu Israel vs The Governing Council Of The on 28 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-25T01:43:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":6524,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006\",\"name\":\"Rev.Dr.Arul Arasu Israel vs The Governing Council Of The on 28 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-25T01:43:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rev.Dr.Arul Arasu Israel vs The Governing Council Of The on 28 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rev.Dr.Arul Arasu Israel vs The Governing Council Of The on 28 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rev.Dr.Arul Arasu Israel vs The Governing Council Of The on 28 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-25T01:43:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rev.Dr.Arul Arasu Israel vs The Governing Council Of The on 28 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-25T01:43:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006"},"wordCount":6524,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006","name":"Rev.Dr.Arul Arasu Israel vs The Governing Council Of The on 28 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-25T01:43:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-dr-arul-arasu-israel-vs-the-governing-council-of-the-on-28-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rev.Dr.Arul Arasu Israel vs The Governing Council Of The on 28 July, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262316","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=262316"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262316\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262316"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262316"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}