PAGE 52
IMPUGNED ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 12.02.2015
DATE OF DECISION: 16.02.2015
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
W.A. Nos.881 and 882 of 2014 & M.P. Nos.1 & 2 of
2014
Dr. Bolleddu Sivanagaiah
Appellant in both the Was
/Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar
Central University of Tamil Nadu
Thanjavur Road
Tiruvarur
Tamil Nadu 610 004
Respondent in both the Was/
Respondents
Writ Appeals preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the common order dated 21.03.2014 passed by this Court in
W.P.Nos.62 and 63 of 2013 respectively.
Prayer in W.P.No.62 of 2013: petition filed under article 226 of
the constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus
directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in
the interview to be held on 3rd and 4th January 2013 for the post
of Assistant Professor of English in Scheudle caste category
pursuant to the employment notice no.2/ CUTNT/T/2012 dated
06.06.2012 issued by the respondent and consequently direct the
respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post
of Assistant Professor of English in schedule caste category.
Prayer in W.P.No.63 of 2013: Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus
directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in
the interview to be held on 3rd and 4th January 2013 for the post
of Assistant professor of English in General category (in
W.P.No.62/13) Associate professor of English in General Category
(in W.P.No.63 of 2013) pursuant to the Employment notice
No.2/CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.06.2012 issued by the respondent and
consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for
appointment to the post of assistant professor of English in
General category (in W.P.No.62/2013) and Associate professor of
English in General Category (in W.P.no.63/2013).
For appellant inMr. S. Sathiachandran
both the WAs
For Mr. S. Saravanan
For respondent in
Mr. T. Ravikumar
both the WAs
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI,
J.)
The instant writ appeals arise from the common order dated
21.03.2014 passed in W.P. Nos.62 and 63 of 2013 respectively,
wherein, the prayer of the writ petitioner, seeking a direction to
consider his case for appointment to the post of Assistant
Professor in English in Scheduled Caste category and in General
category in W.P.Nos.62 and 63 of 2013 respectively, has been turned
down.
2For the purpose of brevity and clarity, the parties are
referred to as per their litigative status in the instant
appeals.
3The facts in nutshell, relevant for the adjudication of the
dispute are that pursuant to the notice dated 06.06.2012, inviting
online applications for appointment on the post of
Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor by the respondent
university, the petitioner made an application for consideration to
the post of Associate Professor in English. The qualification
prescribed in the notice is as under:
i.Good academic record with a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned /
allied/relevant discipline.
ii.A Master's degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent
grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed).
iii.A minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and / or
research in an academic / research position equivalent to that of
Assistant Professor in a University, College or Accredited Research
Institution/industry excluding the period of Ph.D. Research with
evidence of published work and a minimum of 5 publications as books
and / or research/policy papers.
iv.Contribution to educational innovation, decision of new
curricula and courses and technology mediated teaching learning
process with evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and
research students.
v.A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance
Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS),
set out in the UGC Regulations, 2010.
The requirement of good academic record was defined under the
heading Note of the aforestated notice and the same reads thus:
NOTE:
1.Under the term good academic record, the candidate must have
obtained on an average of 50% marks in each of the two public
examinations/degrees immediately preceding the Master's degree.
2.A relaxation of 5% may be provided at the graduate and
Master's level for the SC/ST/Persons with Disabilities (Physical
and Visual Disabilities) categories for the purpose of eligibility
and for assessing good academic record during direct recruitment to
teaching positions.
After shortlisting the applications, the list of candidates
having the requisite qualification and experience for interview,
was promulgated on 15.12.2012, wherein, the name of the appellant
did not figure. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the two
instant writ petitions, viz., W.P. No.62 of 2013 for consideration
of his candidature under the Scheduled Caste category and W.P.No.63
of 2013, seeking a direction to permit him to participate in the
interview and consequently, to consider him for appointment on the
post of Associate Professor in English.
4.The Writ Court, by interim order dated 03.01.2013 permitted
the petitioner to participate in the interview. Both the writ
petitions were considered and decided by a common order and
eventually, they were dismissed holding that the appellant had
secured 40.6% marks in Higher Secondary Course-Intermediate (for
short HSC-Intermediate)and 44.5% marks in graduation, which is far
below the eligibility criteria mentioned in Clause 5.18(a) of the
notice and as such, he was not entitled to be considered for
appointment, as sought by him. Thus, these two writ appeals,
questioning the legality and validity of the common impugned order
dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Writ Court.
5.Sri. S. Sathiachandran, learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that the appellant had obtained 3 Master's degrees in
English, i.e., (i) M.A. (English) from Andhra University, (ii)
M.A.(English) from Osmania University and (iii) M.Phil. (English)
from Acharya Nagarjuna University and he has also completed
Ph.D.(English) from Acharya Nagarjuna University. Thus, the
appellant did possess the requisite 45% marks in two degrees, apart
from one Master's degree. The appellant has 8 years of teaching
experience, 7 publications and more than 5 papers to his credit.
The other less meritorious candidates have been considered and
appointed to the post in question. It is further contended that
good academic record does not mean only securing more than 50% or
45% marks in graduation or HSC-Intermediate, particularly, in a
case, where the appellant has obtained 3 Master's Degrees, securing
more than 50% marks in each degree. Lastly, the learned counsel for
the appellant has urged that the appellant belongs to Scheduled
Caste community and as such, the appellant must be given relaxation
to further his advancement in life, as he has been suffering for
decades.
6.Per contra, Sri. T. Ravikumar, learned counsel for the
respondent, would submit that the appellant partook pursuant to the
notice, wherein, the qualification was clearly prescribed that good
academic record means an average of 50% marks in each of the two
public examinations/degrees immediately preceding the Master's
degree and having regard to the social status, a relaxation of 5%
was granted in respect of average of 50% marks, which was for the
General category. It was next contended that the qualification, as
aforestated, has been determined on the basis of UGC Regulations on
Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other
Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (for short the
UGC Regulations). The appellant has not chosen to challenge the
legality and validity of the qualification prescribed in the notice
and as such, he may not be permitted to plead that further
relaxation is necessary, in case of those candidates who belong to
Scheduled Caste category.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the
pleadings and documents appended thereto.
8.Indisputably, the prescribed qualification for the post in
question is good academic record with a Ph.D. Degree in the
concerned / allied / relevant discipline, a Master's degree with at
least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever
grading system is followed), a minimum of eight years of experience
of teaching and / or research in an academic / research position
equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University, College
or Accredited Research Institution/industry, excluding the period
of Ph.D. research with evidence of published work and a minimum of
5 publications as books and / or research / policy papers,
contribution to educational innovation, decision of new curricula
and courses and technology mediated teaching learning process with
evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research
students, a minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance
Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS),
set out in the UGC Regulations. The term Good academic record has
been defined under the heading Note of the notice. As per the said
Note, a candidate is deemed to have good academic record, if he
obtains on an average, 50% marks in each of the two public
examinations/degrees, immediately preceding the Master's degree. It
is further provided in the Note that relaxation of 5% is
permissible at the graduate and Master's level for the SC/ST
category candidates. This qualification is strictly in conformity
with the requirements as notified under Clause 4.1.0 of the UGC
Regulations.
9.It is beyond cavil that the appellant belongs to Scheduled
Caste category and as such, for him, the requirement is average of
45% marks at the graduate level and 50% marks at the Master's
level. The appellant did possess more than 50% marks in his
Master's degree. Obtaining two Master's degrees in English from two
different Universities, one with 53.4% and second with 58% cannot
improve the position as the requirement is of having an average of
45% marks in graduation and other degree preceding the Master's
degree. It is not disputed by the appellant that he had obtained
44.5% marks in graduation and 40.6% marks in HSC-Intermediate. It
is pertinent to point out that HSC-Intermediate and graduation only
can be treated as two public examinations/degree before the
Master's degree, for, securing M.Phil. Degree, cannot be treated as
a Master's degree.
10.Thus, we do not find any difficulty in holding that the
appellant did not have good academic record as required under the
notice dated 06.06.2012. It is also to be noted that the appellant
has not questioned the legality and validity of the qualification
prescribed under the notice, which was in accordance with the
requirements of the UGC Regulations.
11.The second question which arises for our consideration is as
to whether the appellant, belonging to Scheduled Caste category,
ought to have been given more relaxation, keeping in view, the
historical background.
12.Adverting to the argument of social justice and backwardness,
a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the matter dealing
with requisite minimum benchmark for admission to medical course,
in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another vs. State of M.P. and Others1,
felicitously observed as under:
67. The ambit of special provisions under Article 15(4) has
already been considered by us. While the object of Article 15(4) is
to advance the equality principle by providing for protective
discrimination in favour of the weaker sections so that they may
become stronger and be able to compete equally with others more
fortunate, one cannot also ignore the wider interests of society
while devising such special provisions. Undoubtedly, protective
discrimination in favour of the backward, including Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes is as much in the interest of society
as the protected groups. At the same time, there may be other
national interests, such as promoting excellence at the highest
level and providing the best talent in the country with the maximum
available facilities to excel and contribute to society, which have
also to be borne in mind. Special provisions must strike a
reasonable balance between these diverse national interests.
13.The appellant is not the only candidate belonging to
Scheduled Caste category. On a perusal of the list, we find that 10
other candidates, belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe categories, met the requisite qualification and were invited
for interview. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant in this regard, without questioning the legality of the
notified qualification, is noticed to be rejected.
14.Thus, the reasons recorded by the Writ Court for coming to
the conclusion that the writ petitions are devoid of merit, are
perfectly valid and proper, warranting no interference.
15.As a sequel, both the writ appeals fail and they are
accordingly dismissed. Costs made easy. Connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
Sd/-
Sub Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SCR XXI RULE 3 (1) (a)CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2015(WITH PRAYER FOR
INTERIM RELIEF)
[Arising out of final Judgment and Common Order dated 16.02.2015
passed by the Honble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ
Appeal Nos. 881 and 882 of 2014]
BETWEEN
POSITION OF PARTIES
In the
High CourtIn this Court
AppellantPetitioner
Vs.
The Registrar, Central University of Tamil Nadu, Thanjavur road,
Tiruvarur district, Tamil nadu 610 004RespondentContesting
Respondent
To,
The Honble Chief Justice of India and his Companion Justices of
the Honble Supreme Court of India.
The humble petition of the petitioner above named.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH1. That the petitioner is filing the
present Special Leave Petition Arising out of final Judgment and
Common Order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Honble High Court of
Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 881 and 882 of 2014,
whereby the Honble High Court was pleased dismiss the Writ Appeals
filed by the petitioner herein.. 2. QUESTION OF LAWA. Whether two
public examinations or degree preceding the qualifying Masters
degree would include all the degrees before the qualifying Masters
degree or it means only the UG degree and the HSC-Intermediate?
B. Whether two public examinations or degree preceding the
qualifying Masters degree should be considered in favour of the
meritorious candidate such as the petitioner or should it be used
to oust a meritorious and experienced candidate as that of the
petitioner?
C. Whether the respondent as per their own case has contravened
the Clause 13.0 of the 2010 UGC regulation which provides that the
qualification and selection procedure for appointing the candidates
under contractual basis should be the same as those applicable to a
regularly appointed teacher. The term Good academic record defined
by the university on 28.10.2010. The notification for the post of
Associate professor in English in contract basis was issued on
05.05.2012. In the said notification the respondent university
mentioned about consistently good academic record as eligible
criteria. This petitioner applied for the post. The respondent
university after satisfying appellants eligibility conditions by
rightly applying the method selected him in interview for the post
of Associate professor in English on contract basis. However they
failed to apply the same method for the regular post. As per the
clause 13.1 of the 2010 UGC regulations the respondent university
is not permitted to have different standards for contractual post
and regular one. Hence the respondent university also accepted the
petitioners eligibility criteria. The respondent cannot be allowed
to blow both hot and cold at the same time contravening the UGC
regulations.
3.DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3 (2)The petitioner states that
no other petition seeking leave to appeal has been filed Arising
out of final Judgment and Common Order dated 16.02.2015 passed by
the Honble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos.
881 and 882 of 2014.
4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:
The annexures P/1 to P/3 produced along with the present Special
Leave Petition are true copies of their originals and were a part
of the pleadings and the records of the case in the High Court
below against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in the
present Special Leave Petition.
5.GROUNDS
A) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that
actions of the respondent in not calling for the interview is
highly arbitrary illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of
Constitution of India.
B) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that
the petitioner is already working as Assistant Professor of English
with respondent university on contract basis. The eligible criteria
for this post (Assistant Professor of English) on contract basis
and permanent post is being one and the same. The respondent
university having selected the petitioner for the post on contract
basis but failed to call the petitioner even for interview for the
same post for permanent status is nothing but illegal but for
various reasons.C) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to
appreciate that two public examinations or degree preceding the
qualifying Masters degree would include all the degrees before the
qualifying Masters degree or it means only the UG degree and the
HSC-Intermediate?D) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to
appreciate that two public examinations or degree preceding the
qualifying Masters degree should be considered in favour of the
meritorious candidate such as the petitioner or should it be used
to oust a meritorious and experienced candidate as that of the
petitioner?E) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to
appreciate that the respondent as per their own case has
contravened the Clause 13.0 of the 2010 UGC regulation which
provides that the qualification and selection procedure for
appointing the candidates under contractual basis should be the
same as those applicable to a regularly appointed teacher. The term
Good academic record defined by the university on 28.10.2010. The
notification for the post of Associate professor in English in
contract basis was issued on 05.05.2012. In the said notification
the respondent university mentioned about consistently good
academic record as eligible criteria. This petitioner applied for
the post. The respondent university after satisfying appellants
eligibility conditions by rightly applying the method selected him
in interview for the post of Associate professor in English on
contract basis. However they failed to apply the same method for
the regular post. As per the clause 13.1 of the 2010 UGC
regulations the respondent university is not permitted to have
different standards for contractual post and regular one. Hence the
respondent university also accepted the petitioners eligibility
criteria. The respondent cannot be allowed to blow both hot and
cold at the same time contravening the UGC regulations.
F) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that
the respondent university failed to appreciate the academic and
other relevant credentials of the petitioner.
G) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that
the respondent university failed to consider the fact that the
petitioner is eligible for the post for Associate Professor and
hence he is well qualified for the post for Associate Professor.
Further the respondent university failed to consider my experience
and publication works.
H) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that
the respondent university called 10 people for interview for the
post of Assistant professors in English under SC/ST category. All
the persons are less qualified than the petitioner.
I) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that
as per clause 5.4 of the Employment notification is an arbitrary
provision which is retained only in order to provide the
respondents with the scope to discriminate candidates. The said
clause prescribed qualifications and Experience are minimum and the
mere fact that the candidate possesses the same will not entitle
him/ her for being called for the interview. The university
reserves its right to restrict the candidates to be called for the
interview to a reasonable number on the basis of the qualification
and experience higher than the minimum prescribed as decided by the
duly constituted screening Committees. And approved by the
competent authority. Call letters for attending the interview will
be sent only to the shortlisted candidates by speed post or
registered post or courier service and also by email. No
correspondence will be made with the applicants who were not short
listed/ not called for interview. On a close perusal of the same it
is made clear that the petitioner is highly qualified than the
minimum standard as prescribed by the respondent and therefore the
petitioner ought to have call for the interview.
J) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that
the persons having qualification less than that of the petitioner
have been called for interview by the respondent university. But
failed to consider the letter dated 21.12.2012 sent by the
petitioner to the respondent and Vice Chancellor of the respondent
university seeking them to call the petitioner for interview. The
petitioner have clearly mentioned in the said letter that the
persons having fewer qualifications were shortlisted for interview.
However the respondent did not even reply to above referred letter.
The petitioner has also sent an email to the respondent university
on 31.12.12 again seeking them to issue a call letter for
interview.K) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to
appreciate that certain people in the administration does not want
bright and qualified persons belonging to SC/ST category to be
appointed because it would in due course affect their promotional
chance. That is the reason petitioner though being more qualified
than other 10 candidates belonging to SC/ST category, he is not
appointed.
L) Because the Hon'ble High court has wrongly appreciated the
percentage of marks the petitioner obtained in UG and HSC. However
there is no mention of the petitioners second masters degree. Even
though the petitioner mentioned all the facts in his petition and
the reply statement the learned courts below failed to notice all
these facts and wrongly concluded that the petitioner lacks the
eligibility criteria under the term good academic record as defined
by the respondent university.
M) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that
as per the Clause 13.0 of the 2010 UGC regulation the qualification
and selection procedure for appointing the candidates under
contractual basis should be the same as those applicable to a
regularly appointed teacher. The term Good academic record defined
by the university on 28.10.2010. The notification for the post of
Associate professor in English in contract basis was issued on
05.05.2012. In the said notification the respondent university
mentioned about consistently good academic record as eligible
criteria. This petitioner applied for the post. The respondent
university after satisfying petitioners eligibility conditions by
rightly applying the method selected him in interview for the post
of Associate professor in English on contract basis. However they
failed to apply the same method for the regular post. As per the
clause 13.1 of the 2010 UGC regulations the respondent university
is not permitted to have different standards for contractual post
and regular one. Hence the respondent university also accepted the
petitioners eligibility criteria. The courts below has failed to
appreciate this crucial fact.
N) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that
as per clause 3.8.0, 2010 UGC regulation states about the
Recruitment and qualification.
The Ph.D Degree shall be a mandatory qualification for all
candidates to be appointed as associate professors through direct
recruitment
As per clause 3.8.0 The Ph.D Degree shall be a mandatory
qualification for all candidates to be appointed as associate
professors through direct recruitment.
Hence the minimum eligibility for associate professor through
direct recruitment is only a Ph.D. Degree in relevant subject.
The conditions mentioned in the clause 4.3.0 only can be
preferential requirements among the candidates. S a candidate
having Ph.D. Degree is eligible for the post of Associate professor
but the selection will be based on the preferential other
requirements mentioned in the clause 4.3.0 the learned Judge failed
to notice this fact.
6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
A. The petitioner is the most qualified candidate amongst the 10
candidate selected in the SC/ST category, he is deprived of his
employment and the respondent are forcefully pursuing their owes to
keep the petitioner outside employment. Therefore they may appoint
those less qualified candidate which would render the present
Special Leave Petition meaningless.7.MAIN PRAYER:
In the circumstances, it is, therefore, most humbly and
respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be
pleased to:
(a) Grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India Arising out of final Judgment and Common
Order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Honble High Court of
Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 881 and 882 of
2014;and
(b) Pass such other or further order/ orders as this Honble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
In the circumstances, it is, therefore, most humbly and
respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be
pleased to:
(a) Grant an Ex-parte Stay of the final Judgment and Common
Order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Honble High Court of
Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 881 and 882 of 2014;(b)
Grand an Ex-parte Stay of the impugned appointment proceedings
undertaken by the respondents and (c) Pass such order or orders as
this Honble Court may deem it fit and proper.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND
SHALL EVER PRAY.
Filed by
Place: New Delhi
Filed On:13.04.2015
(S.GOWTHAMAN)
Advocate for the petitioner
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.______ OF 2015IN THE MATTER
OF:
Dr. Bolleddu Sivanagaiah
Petitioner
VERSUS-
The Registrar,
Central University of Tamil Nadu Respondent CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to
the pleadings before the Court, whose order is challenged and the
other documents relied upon in those proceeding. No additional
facts or grounds have been taken therein or relied upon in the
Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of
the documents/annexures attached to the Special Leave Petition are
necessary to answer the question of law relied in the petition or
to make out grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for
consideration of this Honble Court. This certificate is given on
the basis of the instructions given by the Petitioner whose
affidavit is filed in support of the S.L.P.
Filed by
NEW DELHI (S.GOWTHAMAN)
Dated: 13.04.2015 Advocate for the Petitioner
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.________ OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development
Corporation Limited
Petitioner
VERSUS-
A.M.Abdul Rahim and Anr. Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, S. Jeyakumar S/o Late. Subburaj aged about ____ years,
Residing at 2/88, K. Venkateshwarapuram Village, South Street,
Kalugumalai, Thoothukudi, District, present at New Delhi, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1. I am the petitioner in the above noted matter and as such
competent to swear this Affidavit. I have read and understood the
contents of the Special Leave Petition.
2.The accompanying Synopsis, List of Dates and Events (Pages B
to ____) and the facts stated in para 1 to 8 of Special Leave
Petition (Pages _____ to _____) and I.As filed therein are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, no part of it is
false and nothing material is concealed therefrom. That the
annexures filed herewith are true copies of their respective
originals.
3.That the petitioner has not filed any other Special Leave
Petition against the before this Honble Court.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents
made in para Nos. 1 to 3 of the above affidavit are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing material
has been concealed therefrom.
Verified at Chennai on this____day of December, 2014.
DEPONENT
ANNEXURE P/1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
W.P.NO.63 OF 2013
Dr.Bolleddu Sivanagaiah
S/o B.Sambaiah
Door No.7-120,
Thumuluru Post,
Kollipara Mandal,
Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh 522 304
..Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar
Central University of Tamil Nadu
Thanjavur road, Tiruvarur,
Tamil Nadu 610 004
..Respondent
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY B.SIVANAGAIAHI, Dr.Bolledu Sivanagaiah, s/o
B.Sambaiah, Door No.7-120, Thumuluru Post, Kollipara Mandal, Guntur
District, Andhra Pradesh 522 304 presently come down to Chennai do
hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely states as follows:-
1. I am the petitioner and as such i am well aware of the facts
and circumstances of the petition.
2. I further submit that the respondent University issued
Employment notice No.2/CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.06.2012 in national
news papers and as through their official website calling
application from the Prospective candidates for various posts
including the posts of Professors/ Associate Professor and
Assistant Professors for various faculties including English.3. I
further state that I belong to Schedule caste Community am now
working as an Assistant Professor of English under the re3spondent
university since 11/07/2012. I have completed Masters degree in
English and worked till the month of April 2001. Then I joined in
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar centenary Degree college in June 2001 and I worked
till t he month of April 2004. During this period I have done my
second masters degree in English through distance mode. I completed
my second masters degree in English: on July 2004. Thereafter I
joined as a Lecturer in English in Nalanda degree college
affiliated to Acharya Nagarjuna University at Vijayawada on July
2004 to 31st March 2006. During this period I done my M.Phil
programme in English as a part time scholar. I was awarded M.Phil
degree on 25th June 2007. After completing my M.Phil I started to
peruse PH.D in English. I was awarded Doctorate in English on 24th
February 2012. During the period of 2009 to 2012 I worked as
Assistant Professor of English in the Vignans lara institute of
technology and science affiliated to JNTU Kakinada.4. I further
state that the respondent during the month of April 2012 issued a
notification in news papers calling for Walk in interview for the
post of Assistant professor of English on contract basis for the
period of one year. I attended the interview on 11th May 2012 and I
was selected for the post of Assistant Professor in English. The
respondent issued an offer of appointment letter dated 12/06/2012
to me. I joined the respondent university on 11/07/2012 and working
till now. I submit that as per the notification I am fully eligible
to apply for the post of Associate professor and Assistant
professor.5. The respondent university issued Employment notice
No.2/CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.065.2012 for the posts including the
posts of Professors/ Associate Professor and Assistant Professors
for various faculties including English. I have applied for the
post of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor on 22.02.12
through online and the respondent university issued the receipts as
control ID No.708747, 708745 respectively.6. The respondent
university after scrutinizing the applications from various persons
issued a list of candidates called for interview which is published
through official Website on 15.12.12. I humbly submit that in the
process the respondent university failed to act in an impartial and
transparent manner. Further it had called person, having
qualifications less than of mine for interview.7. I further submit
that as per the above referred notification dated 06.06.2012 the
eligibility criteria for the post of Associate Professor of English
is given below.
A) For arts and humanities, sicences, social science, commerce,
education, languages law, journalism and mass communication:-
i. Good academic record with a Ph.D degree in the concerned/
allied / relevant disciplines.
ii. A masters degree with at least 55% of marks (or an equalant
grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed)
iii. A minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and / or
research in an academic/ research position equallent to that of
Assitant professor in a university, college or accredited research
institution/ industry excluding the period of Ph.D. research with
evidence of published works and a minimum of 5 publications as
books and/ or research/ policy papers.
iv. Contribution to educational innovation, design of a new
curricula and courses and technology mediated teaching learning
process with evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and
research students.
v. A minimum score as stipulated in the academic performance
indicator (API) based performance based appraisal system (BBAS), st
out in the UGC regulation 2010.
8.I further state that my eligibility as per the norms mentioned
in the above referred notification of the respondent
university.
i) I have a Ph. D degree in English.
ii) I have two masters Degree in English one with 53.4% and
another with 58%(As per the notifications of the respondent and UGC
regulation for maintenance of standards in higher education 2010
published the gazette of India on 18th September 2010, relaxation
of 5% of marks may I provided to the SC/ST candidates.)
iii) I have eight years of teaching experience excluding the
period of my Doctorate (Ph.D) Programme. I have published 7
publications so for and 5 more papers have been accepted for
printing. My Ph.D thesis also has been accepted for printing.
iv) I have introduced a new teaching course called as CELT
(Centre for English Language Training) at VLITS where I worked
earlier. I alongwith 2 other teachers developed new syllabus for
English for IMSC students of the respondent university. I have
introduced new syllabus for fist M.A. English students on the
course of inter disciplinary philosophy.
v) Under API and BBAS I have more than 350 scores. Minimum score
is 300.
9.I further submit that I was called interview in /Maulana Azad
national Urdu university (Central University) for the post of
Associate Professor of English under un served category vide their
letter dated 29th September 2011. Hence I am certainly eligible for
the post of Associate Professor of English in the respondent
university. The persons having qualification less than of mine have
been called for interview by the respondent university.
10.I further submit that as per the above referred notification
dated 06.06.2012 the eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant
Professor of English is given below.
A) For arts and humanities, sciences, social science, commerce,
education, languages, law, journalism and mass communication:-
i)Good academic record as defined by the concerned university
with at least 55% marks/ or an equivalent grade in a point scale
wherever grading system is followed at the masters degree level in
a relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equallent
degree from an accredited foreign university.
ii.Besides full filing the above qualifications, the candidate
must have cleared the national eligibility test (NET) conducted by
the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/
SET.
iii.Not withstanding anything contained in sub clauses (i) and
(ii) this clause 4.4.1, candidates, who are, or have been awarded a
Ph.D degree in accordance with the UGC (Minimum standard and
procedures for award of Ph.D degree) Regulations, 2009 shall be
exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition
of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of assistant
professor or Equvallent position in universities / collages/
institutions.
iv.NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such masters
programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not
conducted.
11.I have applied for the post of Assistant Professor. I hereby
submit my eligibility as per the said norms.
i. I have a Ph.D degree in English. I have two masters Degree in
English one with 53.4% and another with 58%. (As per UGC regulation
for maintenance of standards in higher education 2010 published in.
the gazette of India on 18th September, 2010, relaxation of 5% of
marks may be provided to the SC/ST candidates.)
ii. As per the Honble Supreme Courts order I have eligible marks
in NET conducted in June 2012. I have obtained 55% in paper I, 36%
in paper II, 45.33% in paper III with an aggregate percentage of
45.14. Whereas the minimum eligibility is 40% for SC/ST
candidates.
iii. I have a Ph.D degree in English in February 2012 as per
2009 UGC regulations. I have eight years of teaching experience
excluding the period of my Doctorate (Ph.D) Programme. I have
published 7 publications so for and 5 more papers have been
accepted for printing. My PH.D. thesis also has been accepted for
printing.
iv. I have introduced a new teaching course called as CELT
(Centre for English Language Training) at VLITS where I worked
earlier. I along with 2 other teachers developed new syllabus for
English for IMSC students of the respondent university. I have
introduced new syllabus for first M.A. English students on the
course of inter disciplinary phiolosophy.
v. Under API and BBAS I have more than 350 scores. Minimum score
is 300.
12.The petitioner submits that as per the clause 5.4 of the
Employment notification the prescribed Qualifications and
Experience are minimum and the mere fact that the candidate possess
the same will not entitle him/ her for being called for the
interview. The university reserves its right to restrict the
candidates to be called for the interview to a reasonable number on
the basis of the qualification and experience higher than the
minimum prescribed as decided by the duly constituted screening
Committees. And approved by the competent authority. Call letters
for attending the interview will be sent only to the shortlisted
candidates by speed post or registered post or courier service and
also by email. No correspondence will be made with the applicants
who were not short listed/ not called for interview.
13.The persons having qualification less than of mine have been
called for interview by the respondent university. I have even sent
a letter dated 21.12.2012 to the respondent and vice Chancellor of
the respondent university seeking them to call me for interview. I
have mentioned in the said letter that the persons having fewer
qualifications were shortslished for interview. The respondent
didnt even reply to my above referred letter. The petitioner has
also sent an email to the respondent university on 31.12.12 again
seeking them to issue a call letter for interview. Hence I have
preferred this writ petition on the following:-
GROUNDS
A)The action of the respondent in not calling for the interview
is highly arbitrary illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of
Constitution of India.
B)It is submitted that I am already working as Assistant
Professor of English with respondent university on contract basis.
The eligible criteria for this post (Assistant Professor of
English) on contrary basis and permanent post is being one and the
same. The respondent university having selected me for ht post on
contract basis but failed to call me even for interview for the
same post for permanent status is nothing but illegal but for
various reasons.
C)The respondent university failed to appreciate my academic and
other relevant credentials.
D)The respondent university failed to consider the fact that I
am eligible for the post for Associate Professor and hence I am
well qualified for the post for Associate Professor.
E)The respondent university failed to consider my experience and
publication works.
F)The respondent university called 10 people for intereveiw for
the post of Assistant professors in English under SC/ST category.
All the persons are less qualified than me.
G)The petitioner submits that as per clause 5.4 of the
Employment notification the prescribed qualifications and
Experience are minimum and the mere fact that the candidate
possesses the same will not enetile him/ her for being called for
the interview. The unieristy reserves its right to restrict the
candidates to be called for the interview to a reasonable number on
the basis of the qualification and experience higher than the
minimum prexdribed as decided by the duly constituted screening
Committees. And approved b the competent authority. Call letters
for attending the interview ill be sent only to the shortlisted
candidates by speed post or registered post or courier service and
also by email. No correspondence will be made with the applicants
who were not short listed/ not called for interview. On a close
perusal of the same it is made clear that the petitioner is highly
qualified than the minimum standard as prescribed by the respondent
and therefore the petitioner ought to have call for the
interview.
H)The persons having qualification less than of mine have been
called for interview by the respondent university. I have even sent
a lette3r dated 21.12.2012 to the respondent and Vice Chancellor of
the respondent university seeking them to call me for interview. I
have mentioned in the said letter that the persons having fewer
qualifications were shortlisted for interview. I have mentioned in
the said letter that the persons having fewer qualifications were
shortlisted for interview. the respondent did not even reply to my
above referred letter. The petitioner has also sent an email to the
respondent university on 31.12.12 again seeking them to issue a
call letter for interview.
The interview is to be conducted on 3.1.13 and 4.1.13
Under these circumstances it is prayed that this Honble High
Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview
to be held on 3rd and 4th January 2013 for the post of Assistant
Professor of English in schedule caste category pursuant to the
Employment notice No.2/CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.06.2012 issued by the
respondent and consequently direct the respondent to consider the
petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor of
English in Schedule caste category and thus render justice.
Under these circumstances it is prayed that this Honble High
Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview
to be held on 3rd and 4th January 2013 for the post of Associate
professor of English in General category pursuant to the Employment
notice No.2/ CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.06.2012 issued by the respondent
and consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner
for appointment to the post of Associate Professor of English in
General category and thus render Justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai this the 2nd January 2013 and the
contents of the affidavit has been read and explained to the
deponent and affixed his signature in my presence
Before Me
Advocate: Chennai
//True Copy//
ANNEXURE P/2IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date:21.03.2014
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.Raja
Writ Petition Nos.62 and 63 of 2013
Dr. Bolleddu Sivanagaiah
Petitioner in both the Was
Versus
The Registrar
Central University of Tamil Nadu
Thanjavur Road
Tiruvarur
Tamil Nadu 610 004
Respondent in both the Was/
Prayer in W.P.No.62 of 2013: This petition has been filed
seeking writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to permit the
petitioner to participate in the interview to be held on 3rd and
4th January 2013 for the post of Assistant Professor of English in
Scheudle caste category pursuant to the employment notice no.2/
CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.06.2012 issued by the respondent and
consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for
appointment to the post of Assistant Professor of English in
schedule caste category.
Prayer in W.P.No.63 of 2013: This Petition has been filed
seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to permit the
petitioner to participate in the interview to be held on 3rd and
4th January 2013 for the post of Assistant professor of English in
General category (in W.P.No.62/13) Associate professor of English
in General Category (in W.P.No.63 of 2013) pursuant to the
Employment notice No.2/CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.06.2012 issued by the
respondent and consequently direct the respondent to consider the
petitioner for appointment to the post of assistant professor of
English in General category (in W.P.No.62/2013) and Associate
professor of English in General Category (in W.P.no.63/2013).
For appellant in both the WPs Mr. S. Saravanan
For respondent in both the WPs Mr.Maimoona Badsha
COMMON ORDER
This Writ Petition in W.P.No.62 of 2013 has been filed praying
for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to permit
the petitioner to participate in the interview to be held on 3rd
and 4th January 2013 for the post of Assistant Professor of English
in Schedule caste category pursuant to the employment notice no.2/
CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.06.2012 issued by the respondent and
consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for
appointment to the post of Assistant Professor of English in
schedule caste category.
2.Thee Writ Petition in W.P.No.63 of 2013 has been filed by the
petitioner praying for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the
respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview
to be held on 3rd and 4th January 2013 for the post of Assistant
professor of English in General category pursuant to the Employment
notice No.2/CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.06.2012 issued by the respondent
and consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner
for appointment to the post of assistant professor of English in
General category and Associate professor of English in General
Category.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner who belongs to the schedule caste community is now
working as an Assistant Professor of English under the respondent
University since 11.07.2012. The petitioner has completed his
Masters degree in English during the academic years 1996-1998 and
thereafter he had joined in Vidwen Junior College as Junior
lecturer in English and worked till the moth of April 2001. The
petitioner had then joined in D.R.B.R.Amedkar Centenary Degree
College in June, 2001 and worked till the month of April, 2004.
During the said period he had pursued his second masters degree in
English through distance mode. Pursuant thereto, he had joined as a
Lecturer in English in Naladna Degree College affiliated to Acharya
Nagarjune University at Viajayawada from July, 2004 to 31st March
2006. During the said period, the petitioner has completed his
M.Phil Programme the petitioner started to pursue his Ph.d.in
English and he was awarded Doctorate in English on 24.02.2012.
During the said period of 2009 to 2012 the petitioner worked as
Assistant Professor of English in the Vignans Lara Institute of
Technology and science affiliated to JNTU Kakinada. While so, the
respondent issued a notification in news paper calling for Walk-in
interview for the post of Assistant Professor of English on
contract basis for the period of one year and he was also attended
the interview on 11.05.2012 and he was selected for the post of
Assistant professor in English. The respondent issued an offer of
appointment letter dated 12.06.2012 to the petitioner and the
petitioner jointed the respondent university on 11.07.2012 and
working till now. As per the notification the petitioner was fully
eligible to apply for the post of Associate professor and Assistant
professor. The respondent university issued Employment Notice
No.2/CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.06.2012 for the posts including the post
of professors/ Associate professor and Assistant professors for
various faculties including English. The petitioner has applied for
the post of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor on
22.06.2012 through only and the respondent university issued the
receipts as control ID Nos.708747, 708745 respectively. The
respondent university after scrutinizing the applications from
various persons issued a list of candidates called for interview
which is published through official website on 15.12.2012. but the
petitioners name was not shown in the list of candidates calling
for interview. When the petitioner was able to satisfy this Court
that the has obtained Ph.D., decree on 24.02.2012 and therefore he
need not pass N.E.T. Certificate, this court by an order 3.01.2013
had directed the university to interview the petitioner for the
post for Assistant Professor both under the General category as
well as schedule caste category in respect of the Employment
Notification dated 06.06.2012 and that the marks of the interview
need not be published until further orders from this Court.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has participated in the interview held on 3rd and
4th March 2013 on the basis of the qualification possessed by the
petitioner and hence a further direction shall be given to the
respondent to consider the case of the petitioner.
4.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the petitioner has not possessed experience of
guiding doctoral research students which is necessary for a
candidate applying fro the post of Associate Professor as specified
by the UGC Regulations. He further contended that the screening
Committee, while screening the applications submitted by the
candidates, disqualified those who do not posses average marks of
50% at the Higher Secondary and Graduate level, however, in the
case of SC/ST candidates, relaxation of 5% marks was granted. The
petitioner has also applied under the reserved category of SC for
the post of Assistant Professor in English and Associate Professor
in English and as per his application, he scored 40.6% and 44.5% in
HSC (intermediate) and Graduation (BA-Lit) respectively. Since the
petitioner has not obtained average marks, he was disqualified by
the screening Committee. But, without bringing the above said facts
to the notice of this court, the petitioner has wrongly obtained an
interim order on 03.01.2013 with a direction to the respondent to
interview the petitioner on 3rd and 4th January of 2013 for the
post of Assistant Professor in English and Assistant Professor in
English both under the General and Schedule caste category.
Pursuant to the above said interim direction, the petitioner was
also permitted to attend the interview. But as per the UGC
Regulations, when he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria, he is
automatically ineligible to be considered for the post of Assistant
Professor and on that basis he prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition.5. This court fully agrees with the submissions made by
the learned counsel for respondent. As the petitioner had secured
40.6% marks in HSC (intermediate) and 44.5% of marks in Graduation,
which are far below to the eligibility criteria mentioned in Clause
5.18(e) of the notification , it is not known as to how he was able
to get an order from this Court on 03.01.2013 with a direction to
the respondent to permit him to participate in the interview held
on 3rd and 4th January of 2013 for the post of Assistant Professor
in English and Associate Professor in English both under the
General and Schedule Caste category. In addition thereto, 10 other
candidates, hailing from the same reserved SC/ ST category, have
possessed all the qualifications prescribed by the UGC, hence, they
have met the percentage of marks under good academic record
prescribed by the University. In view of the fact that the
petitioner did not fulfil the minimum requirement he was rightly
not shortlisted. Surprisingly, since the above said fact were not
brought to the notice of this Court, he obtained an interim
direction from this Court on 03.01.2013 to take part in the
interview and the respondent also as per the order of this Court,
permitted the petitioner to participate in the interview, but the
results of the interview was withheld in view of the pendency of
the writ petition.
Therefore for the aforesaid reasons, this court finding no merit
or substance in the writ petition, is inclined to dismiss the writ
petition and accordingly it is dismissed and the respondent is
permitted to publish the results forthwith. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
ANNEXURE P/3MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF WRIT APPEAL
(UNDRF CLAUSE XV OF LETTERS PATENT)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
W.A.No.882 of 2014
Against
W.P.NO.63 OF 2013
Dr.Bolleddu Sivanagaiah
S/o B.Sambaiah
Door No.7-120,
Thumuluru Post,
Kollipara Mandal,
Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh 522 304..Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
The Registrar
Central University of Tamil Nadu
Thanjavur road, Tiruvarur,
Tamil Nadu 610 004
..Respondent/Respondent
The address for service of notices and processes on the
appellant is that of his counsel Mr.S.Saravanan, New No.273, Old
No.130, Room No.7, II Floor, Thambu Street, Chennai 01
The address for the service of notices and processes on the
respondents is the same as stated above.
The above named Appellant/ petitioner prefers this Memorandum of
Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order dated 21.03.2014 passed by
Honble Mr.Justice T.Raja in W.P.No.63 of 2013 on the following
among other.
GROUNDS
1. The order of the learned judged is against law and is based
on misconception of facts.
2. The learned single judge wrongly held that the petitioner
lacks eligibility criteria for the post of Associate professor in
English.
3. The learned judge dismissed the writ petition solely relying
on the contentions of the respondent. The learned Judge miserably
failed to appreciate the facts and points put forward by the
Appellant.4. The learned Judge failed to notice that the Appellant
got eligibility criteria for the post of Associate professor in
English as per the UGC rules.
5. As per the Employment notice NO.2/CUTNT/T/2012 dated
06.06.2012 issued by the respondent university the eligibility
criteria for the post of Associate professor of English is given
below.
A) For arts and humanities, sicences, social science, commerce,
education, languages law, journalism and mass communication:-
i)Good academic record with a Ph.D degree in the concerned/
allied / relevant disciplines.
ii)A masters degree with at least 55% of marks (or an equalant
grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed)
iii)A minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and / or
research in an academic/ research position equallent to that of
Assitant professor in a university, college or accredited research
institution/ industry excluding the period of Ph.D. research with
evidence of published works and a minimum of 5 publications as
books and/ or research/ policy papers.
iv)Contribution to educational innovation, design of a new
curricula and courses and technology mediated teaching learning
process with evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and
research students.
v) A minimum score as stipulated in the academic performance
indicator (API) based performance based appraisal system (BBAS), st
out in the UGC regulation 2010.
The appellants eligibility criteria as per the norms mentioned
in the above referred notification of the respondent university is
given below.i) The appellant has a Ph.D degree in English.
ii)The appellant has two masters Degree in English one with
53.4% and another with 58%. (As per UGC regulation for maintenance
of standards in higher education 2010 published in. the gazette of
India on 18th September, 2010, relaxation of 5% of marks may be
provided to the SC/ST candidates.)
ii)The appellant has eight years of teaching experience
excluding the period of my Doctorate (Ph.D) Programme. I have
published 7 publications so for and 5 more papers have been
accepted for printing. My PH.D. thesis also has been accepted for
printing.
iii)The appellant introduced a new teaching course called as
CELT (Centre for English Language Training) at VLITS where I worked
earlier. I along with 2 other teachers developed new syllabus for
English for IMSC students of the respondent university. I have
introduced new syllabus for first M.A. English students on the
course of inter disciplinary phiolosophy.
v)Under API and BBAS I have more than 350 scores. Minimum score
is 300.
Hence the appellant is well within the eligibility criteria for
the post of Associate Professor in English. The learned judge
failed to appreciate this evidence.6.The learned judge in his order
mentioned that the appellant lacks the eligibility criteria under
good academic record as defined by the Respondent University. As
per the respondent universitys definition the terms Good academic
record means.
The candidate must have obtained on an average of 50% marks in
each of the two public examinations/ degree immediately preceding
the masters degree.
Further 5% of marks given as relaxation to the candidates belong
to the SC/ST category.
The appellant belong to the SC/ST category and his academic
credentials are given below.
The appellant has completed 2 masters degree and one UG in
English
S.No.DegreeYearPercentage
1.B.A. in English 1993 199644.56%
2.M.A. in English1996 199853.4 %
3.M.A. in English2002 200458 %
Therefore the appellant meets eligible criteria under Good
Academic record as defined by the respondent university. The
learned Single Judge failed to appreciate this fact.7.The learned
judge just mentioned about percentage of marks the appellant
obtained in UG and HSC. Absolutely there is no mention of the
appellants second masters degree. Even though the appellant
mentioned all the facts in his petition and the reply statement the
learned judge failed to notice all these facts and wrongly
concluded that the appellant lacks the eligibility criteria under
the term good academic record as defined by the respondent
university.
8.As per the Clause 13.0 of the 2010 UGC regulation the
qualification and selection procedure for appointing the candidates
under contractual basis should be the same as those applicable to a
regularly appointed teacher. The term Good academic record defined
by the university on 28.10.2010. The notification for the post of
Associate professor in English in contract basis was issued on
05.05.2012. In the said notification the respondent university
mentioned about consistently good academic record as eligible
criteria. This appellant applied for the post. The respondent
university after satisfying appellants eligibility conditions by
rightly applying the method selected him in interview for the post
of Associate professor in English on contract basis. However they
failed to apply the same method for the regular post. As per the
clause 13.1 of the 2010 UGC regulations the respondent university
is not permitted to have different standards for contractual post
and regular one. Hence the respondent university also accepted the
appellants eligibility criteria. The learned judge failed to
appreciate this crucial fact.
9. As per clause 3.8.0, 2010 UGC regulation states about the
Recruitment and qualification.
The Ph.D Degree shall be a mandatory qualification for all
candidates to be appointed as associate professors through direct
recruitment
As per clause 3.8.0 The Ph.D Degree shall be a mandatory
qualification for all candidates to be appointed as associate
professors through direct recruitment.
Hence the minimum eligibility for associate professor through
direct recruitment is only a Ph.D. Degree in relevant subject.
The conditions mentioned in the clause 4.3.0 only can be
preferential requirements among the candidates. S a candidate
having Ph.D. Degree is eligible for the post of Associate professor
but the selection will be based on the preferential other
requirements mentioned in the clause 4.3.0 the learned Judge failed
to notice this fact.It is therefore respectfully prayed that this
Honble court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 21.03.2014
passed by the learned Judge in W.P.Nos.63 of 2013 and allow this
writ appeal and pass such other orders as this Honble Court may fit
and prop0er and thus render justice.Counsel for the Appellant/
Petitioner
Memo of Valuation
Value of the Writ Petition :Incapable of Valuation
Court fee Paid
:Rs.200/- only
Value of Writ Appeal
:Incapable of valuation
Court fee paid
:Rs.200/- only
Dated at Chennai on this 12th day of June 2014
Counsel for the Appellant/ Petitioner
//True Copy//
ANNEXURE P/1
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TAMIL NADU
(Established by an Act of Parliament, 2009)
Thanjavur Road, Thiruvarur - 610 004 :
04366 225205/220258
Employment Notice No.2/CUTN/T/2012
Date: 06.06.2012
CUTN invites Online application for the following Regular and
Backlong Vacancies
Subject CodeSubjectCategory of the subject (for referring
Essential qualification for the post concerned)Name of the post /
Pay Band (PB) + Academic Grade Pay (AGP) / No. of Vacancies
(Including reserved positions shown in brackets), Age for
retirement on superannuation: 65 years (at present)
Professor (Rs. 37400- 67000 + AGP 10000)Associate Professor
(Rs.37400-67000 + AGP 9000)Assistant Professor (Rs. 15600-39100 +
AGP 6000)
123456
CHMChemistrySciences01(UR01(UR)04 (UR-2, SC-1, ST-1
COMComputer Sciences
Sciences01(UR)01 (UR)
ECOEconomicsSocial Sciences
01(UR02(UR-2)04 (UR-3, OBC-1)
EDUEducationSocial Sciences
01(UR01(UR)02(OBC-1, SC-1)
ENGEnglish
Langauges01(SC02(UR-2)05 (UR-3, OBC-1 & SC-1
ENSEnvironmental Studies
Sciences01(UR)02(UR-2)
LAWLegal Studies/ LAW
Social Sciences01(ST)01 (ST)
LISLife Sciences
Sciences01(UR02(UR-2)04 (UR-2, OBC-1 & SC-1)
LINLinguistics
Sciences01(UR)01 (UR)
MATMathematicsSciences02(UR-1 & SC-1))02 (OBC-1 &
SC-1)
MMCMedia & Mass CommunicationSocial Sciences
02(UR-1 & SC-1)02 (UR-2)
MUSMusicSocial Sciences
01(UR)02 (UR-1 & OBC-1
PHYPhysicsSciences
01(UR)03 (UR-1, OBC-1 & SC-1)
SOSSocial SciencesSocial Sciences
01(UR02(UR-2)04 (UR-3 & ST-1)
TMLTamilLanguage
01(UR)02 (UR-1 & SC-1)
Sub Total062139#
Total66