IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.2.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Writ Appeal Nos.1353 and 1759 of 2004 and WAMP.Nos.2522 and 3294 of 2004 --- P. Kannadas .. Appellant in both the appeals. (9th Respondent) vs. 1. M. Shanti 2. The Chancellor Madurai Kamaraj University Raj Bhavan Chennai 600 032. 3. The Vice Chancellor Madurai Kamaraj University Palkalai Nagar Madurai 21. 4. The Registrar Madurai Kamaraj University Palkalai Nagar Madurai 21. 5. The Principal Madurai Kamaraj University College Alagar Kovil Road Madurai 21. 6. The Syndicate Madurai Kamaraj University Palkalai Nagar Madurai 21. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. A. Rani 8. A.T. Senthamarai Kannan 9. P. Murugesan 10. K. Selvakumar .. Respondents in both the appeals. (Petitioner & Respondents 1 to 8 & 10) ----- Writ Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 17.3.2004 made in Writ Petition Nos.12022 and 12031 of 2001. WP Nos.12022/01 and 12031/01: Petition presented to this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records (1) relating to the selection of Mr.P.Kannadas, the 9th respondent herein appointed to the post of Commerce Lecturer vide order dated 31.5.2001 on the file of the 4th respondent and to quash the same and direct the respondents 2 to 5 to appoint the petitioner as a Commerce Lecturer of Madurai Kamaraj University College. (2)on the file of the 4th respondent in No.MKUC/Lect/2001 dated 31.6.2001 relating to the selection of the respondents 6 to 10 for the post of Lectuers in the Department of Commerce and to quash the same and direct the respondents 2 to 5 to place a fresh advertisement in a newspaper with wide circulation, calling for applications for the said posts and conduct fresh interview to the eligible applicants and appoint the so selected candidates to the vacant posts of Lecturers in the various Department of Madurai Kamaraj University College. For Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr. Counsel for Mr.S.Yashwanth For Respondents: Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal for M/s.G.M.Mani Associates-R1 Mr.S.Sethuraman for Madurai Kamaraj University for R-4 Ms.S.Vasuki – R3 & R5 Mr.M.Venkateswaran- R7 to R10 ----- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT (Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) These two writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 17.3.2004 made in Writ Petition Nos.12022 and 12031 of 2001 laid by one M.Shanthi, the unsuccessful candidate, who applied for the post of Lecturer in the Commerce Department of the fourth respondent College. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rank in the writ petitions. 3. In brief, respondents 6 to 10 were selected for five vacancies to the post of Lecturers in the Commerce Department of the fourth respondent college while the writ petitioner was not selected. According to the writ petitioner, the ninth respondent has got M.B.A. qualification, which is not a minimum required qualification for the post of Lecturer in the Commerce Department, as the minimum required qualification for the post of Lecturer in the Commerce Department remains M.Com degree. Contending that the ninth respondent has not possessed minimum required qualification i.e. M.Com degree, the selection of the ninth respondent was challenged by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.12022 of 2001. In W.P.No.12031 of 2001, the writ petitioner had challenged the selection and appointment of respondents 6, 7, 8 and 10, who were selected to the remaining four vacancies to the post of Lecturer in the Commerce Department of the fourth respondent college on the ground that no wide publication was given as to the filling up of five vacancies in the said post. 4. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that had the ninth respondent not been selected to the post of Lecturer in the Commerce Department of the fourth respondent college for the lack of minimum required qualification namely M.Com degree, the writ petitioner would have been selected to the said post. Alternatively, it was contended that the advertisement does not disclose that M.B.A. degree holders are also entitled to apply for the post of Lecturer in Commerce Department to teach the students of B.B.A. and in that case, more candidates with M.B.A. degree qualification would have applied. 5.1. On the other hand, the case of the University was that the minimum qualification required for the post of Lecturers working in the Commerce Department, who are taking classes for B.B.A. students, is M.B.A. Degree. According to the University, the ninth respondent possesses a Post Graduation Degree in Business Administration, which https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ satisfies the minimum required qualification for the post of Lecturers to teach students of B.B.A. degree, the course being taught in the Commerce Department. 5.2. Even according to the fourth respondent college, the ninth respondent satisfies the minimum required qualification for the post of Lecturer to teach students of the B.B.A. degree. 6. According to respondents 6 to 10, the applications were invited for filling up five vacancies in the post of Lecturers in the Commerce Department and the required qualification and payment of salary shall be as per the UGC norms. It was also contended that neither the advertisement nor the UGC norms specifically prescribes that candidates of M.Com degree alone shall apply for the said post. 7. Accepting the case of the writ petitioner, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions observing that if really the fourth respondent college wanted to allot one post in the Commerce Department exclusively for the candidate who possesses the required qualification in the Business Administration course, both PG as well as the other qualifications, nothing could have prevented the fourth respondent college to have specifically earmarked that post even in the Commerce Department, in which event, the scope for selection would have been entirely in different spheres and if such a specific prescription had been made, it would have enabled persons with even better qualifications than that of the ninth respondent to have applied and it would have enabled the Selection Committee also to have a wider scope of consideration. The learned Judge further observed that even a perusal of the Selection Committee's proceedings do not disclose that any candidate other than the ninth respondent, who was in possession of such qualification in that subject, came up for consideration to compete with the ninth respondent. According to the learned single Judge, when the advertisement merely stated the post for Lecturer in Commerce Department, it is but proper that the zone of consideration is confined to the requirement that was stipulated in the advertisement. Accordingly, the learned single Judge set aside the selection of the ninth respondent; however, refused to grant a positive direction to the fourth respondent college to appoint the writ petitioner in the place of the ninth respondent and instead, respondents 3 and 4 were directed to proceed afresh with the selection for appointment of that single post of Lecturer in the Commerce Department by following the prescribed procedure. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record. 9. We are unable to appreciate the reasons that weighed the learned single Judge, because in the advertisement, applications https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were called for to fill up five posts of Lecturer in Commerce Department. It is not in dispute that BBA course is also being taught by the Commerce Department. As per the UGC norms, the minimum qualification for the post of Lecturer is Post Graduate degree in a particular subject. Therefore, for taking classes for BBA students, the Lecturer should possess the P.G. Qualification in MBA degree as per the UGC norms. When five posts of Lecturer are sought to be filled up in the Department of Commerce as per their internal requirement, we do no see any illegality or irregularity committed by the ninth respondent for applying to the post of Lecturer with MBA qualification to teach BBA students studying in Commerce Department. Of course, the management has not earmarked one post of the Lecturer with MBA qualification to take classes for BBA students. Had it been earmarked, of course, more candidates with MBA qualification would have applied. But, the point for consideration is whether the writ petitioner is aggrieved by any such failure to earmark one post for a candidate with MBA qualification. In our considered opinion, if the petitioner is an MBA candidate, she could contend that she had been deprived of applying to the post of Lecturer with MBA qualification, due to the failure to earmark one Lecturer post for MBA candidates. When there is no dispute that BBA course also comes under the Commerce Department and the UGC requires that a Lecturer to take BBA course should have minimum qualification of PG degree in MBA and the advertisement called for applications for filling up five posts of Lecturers in the Commerce Department, the failure on the part of the Management to earmark one post of Lecturer for MBA candidates would not be a ground for the writ petitioner having M.Com qualification to stake her claim for the one post to which the ninth respondent was selected with MBA qualification. As it is not in dispute that when the College required a Lecturer with MBA qualification to take classes for BBA course, which also come under the Commerce Department, we are of the considered opinion that the court should not stand on hyper technicalities to interfere with the selection of candidate with MBA qualification to take classes for BBA students, which would, in fact, affect the larger interest of the students joined in the BBA course. 10. Similarly, we are also unable to appreciate the contention of the writ petitioner, while challenging the appointment of other respondents 6 to 8 and 10, on the ground that the advertisement was not given wide publicity, as the writ petitioner having applied pursuant to the said advertisement is not estopped to contend that the advertisement was not given wide publicity. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the reasons weighed the learned single Judge in setting aside the selection and appointment of the ninth respondent to the post of Lecturer in the Commerce Department of the fourth respondent College. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petitions stand dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. Be that be, the fact remains that pursuant to the direction of the learned single Judge dated 17.3.2004, the writ petitioner was selected and appointed as Lecturer in the Commerce Department with effect from 1.7.2006 and therefore, as on date nothing survives in the writ petitions. The writ appeals are allowed. No costs. Connected WAMP.Nos.2522 and 3294 of 2004 are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ATR To 1. The Chancellor Madurai Kamaraj University Raj Bhavan Chennai 600 032. 2. The Vice Chancellor Madurai Kamaraj University Palkalai Nagar Madurai 21. 3. The Registrar Madurai Kamaraj University Palkalai Nagar Madurai 21. 4. The Principal Madurai Kamaraj University College Alagar Kovil Road Madurai 21. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The Syndicate Madurai Kamaraj University Palkalai Nagar Madurai 21. +1cc to M/s.Sethuraman, Advocate Sr 6921 +1cc to M/s. G.M.Mani Associates Sr 7018 +2ccs to Rajnish Pathiyil, Advocate Sr 7020 BV(CO) km/4.3. W.A.Nos.1353 & 1759 of 2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/