IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.03.2010 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. RAJA W.P.No.7238 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1, 2 of 2008 Dr.P.Rajendran ..Petitioner Vs. 1.Bharathiyar University, Rep. by its Registrar, Coimbatore. 2.University Grants Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi. 3.Dr.D.G.Ganesan ..Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned resolution No.53 of Syndicate Meeting of the University dated 12.01.2008 passed by the 1st respondent, quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to make appointment in accordance with UGC Notification, 2000, and pass such further orders. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Krishnamurthy for Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents: Ms.N.Kavitha for R1 Mr.P.R.Gopinathan for R2 No Appearance for R3 ORDER The Petitioner, Dr.P.Rajendran, has filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned resolution No.53 passed by the 1st respondent, Syndicate of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the University dated 12.01.2008, quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to make appointment in accordance with UGC Notification, 2000. 2. The petitioner has passed Post Graduate in Commerce by securing 81% marks from the University of Madras and also passed MBA from the Department of Management Studies by securing 59.94% from Madura Kamaraj University, Madurai and also completed M.Phil. by securing 64.88% and Ph.D in 1995. With the above qualifications, he was appointed as Assistant Professor of Commerce in Rajus, College, Rajapalayam on 24.06.1984. After 1 ½ years, the petitioner joined in V.H.N.S.N. College, Virudhunagar and now has got 21 years and 10 months of continuous service with a designation as Reader in Commerce. Whileso, the 1st respondent, Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore, called for application for the post of Professor of Commerce and Professor-cum-Director of School of Management. In response to that advertisement, the petitioner also applied to both the posts and thereafter, the petitioner received a letter from the 1st respondent asking him to attend the interview for the post of Professor of Commerce alone, but not other posts. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the 3rd respondent was appointed as Professor of Commerce by the 1st respondent. The petitioner, therefore, having seen that the 3rd respondent is not having the required qualification, has sent a letter dated 24.01.2008 to the 1st respondent to furnish the particulars of the selected candidate, members of selection committee and criteria for selection. Though the petitioner's application was received with an acknowledgment dated 25.01.2008, the particulars requested by the petitioner were not furnished. However, a copy of the Syndicate resolution was furnished to the petitioner by one of the Syndicate member. Therefore, the same is challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned resolution is illegal and the appointment of the 3rd respondent being in violation of the statute as well as UGC Regulations, therefore, the same was sought to be termed as illegal. While elaborating his argument, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has not properly seen that the 3rd respondent does not possess the minimum qualification for appointment for the post of Professor of Commerce as required in Annexure 1.3.1 of UGC Regulations, 2000. He further submits that 1st respondent omitted to see that the 3rd respondent completed his Ph.D only in the year 2005, but did not have requisite 10 years of PG teaching experience and has not guided any students at Doctorate level, whereas the petitioner acquired Doctorate and is possessed of 22 years of PG teaching experience, of which, 12 years is of M.Phil. teaching experience. That apart, the petitioner has also guided regular M.Phil. students and Ph.D. Students. On that basis, prayer has been made to allow the writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Refuting the argument, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the notification regarding the appointment of Professor has mentioned the following minimum qualifications:- "4.0.0 DIRECT RECRUITMENT 4.1.0 PROFESSOR An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with 10 years of experience in post graduate teaching, and/or experience in research at the University/National Level institutions, including experience of guiding research at doctoral level. OR An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge. In exceptional cases, the teachers with 15 years of UG teaching/research experience could also be considered." Further, clause 7.0.0 of the aforesaid U.G.C. Notification dealt with the career advancement scheme. So far as the appointment of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme is concerned, in clause 7.1.3, it was provided that "A Reader with a minimum of eight years of service in that grade, will be eligible to be considered for appointment as a Professor. Further, clause 7.1.4 provided that "The Selection Committees for career advancement shall be the same as those of Direct Recruitment for each category. Further, clause 7.5.0 dealt with the issue of promotion of Professor, which provides as under:- "7.5.0 PROFESSOR (Promotion): In addition to the sanctioned position of Professors, which must be filled in through direct recruitment through all India advertisements, promotions may be made from the post of Reader to that of Professor after 8 years of service as Reader. 7.6.0 The Selection Committee for promotion to the post of Professor should be the same as that for direct recruitment. For the promotion from Reader to Professor, the following method of promotion may be followed. The candidate should present herself/himself before the Selection Committee with some of the following:- a) Self-appraisal reports (required) b) Research contribution/ books/ articles published. c) Any other academic contributions. The best three written contributions of the teacher (as defined by her/him) may be sent in advance to the Experts to review before coming for the selection. The candidate should be asked to submit these in 3 sets with the application. d) Seminars/Conferences attended. e) Contribution to teaching/ academic environment/institutional corporate life. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ f) Extension and field outreach activities." 7. That subsequently the UGC in exercise of its power conferred u/s 26(1)(g)&(e) r/w Section 14 of the UGC Act, 1956, framed the University Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications required for the appointment and career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it), Regulations, 2000, which was notified vide letter dated 04.04.2000. The Regulation 1.3.1 deals with the direct recruitment of Professor which provides as under:- 1.3.1 PROFESSOR An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged research, with 10 years of experience in post graduate teaching, and/or experience in research at the University/National Level institutions, including experience of guiding research at doctoral level." In full compliance of the above rules and regulations, the selection committee was constituted and all the 21 candidates were interviewed by verifying marks statement and degree certificate submitted by the candidates and finally the selection committee recommended the name of the 3rd respondent for the said post. On that basis, it was urged that the selection of the candidate recommended by the Selection Committee cannot be questioned, and moreso, a candidate, who appeared in the selection process, after his failure to get selected, cannot challenge the selection process on the ground that the entire selection process was illegal. Even after the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, recommending the appointment of 3rd respondent, the Syndicate of Bharathiyar University, passed a resolution vide Item No.53 dated 12.01.2008 accepting the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Therefore, the challenge made by the petitioner, against the resolution item no.53 dated 12.01.2008 passed by the Syndicate of Bharathiyar University, is not sustainable. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. When the interview was held on 09.01.2008 at 9 a.m in the Syndicate Hall of Bharathiyar University for selection to the post of Professor of Commerce, 21 candidates applied for the said post and out of them, only 16 candidates attended the interview and 5 candidates remained absent. The Selection Committee, consisting highly qualified academicians, conducted the interview of the candidates and petitioner was also one among the candidates, who attended the interview. The Selection Committee after interviewing all candidates, on assessment of the qualifications, experience and talents, having satisfied with the performance shown by the 3rd respondent, Dr.G.Ganesan, to the said post, recommended his name for the said post. After the Selection Committee made the recommendation, Syndicate of the Bharathiyar University, as per the Statutes of Bharathiyar University and the rules and regulations of the Government of Tamilnadu, accepted the recommendation of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Selection Committee, to appoint Dr.G.Ganesan, the 3rd respondent herein, for the post of Professor of Commerce. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that the Selection Committee, 1st respondent herein, has not been constituted properly as envisaged under the UGC Regulations, 2000 and the resolution Item No.53 dated 12.01.2008 of Syndicate of the Bharathiyar University, are illegal and unsustainable, cannot be accepted. 6. Even in respect of qualification of the petitioner as well as 3rd respondent, a detailed counter has been filed stating that the 3rd respondent, who is the successful candidate, has possessed all the qualifications required for the post of Professor of Commerce, and the 3rd respondent, Dr.G.Ganesan, has completed his Ph.D. in Commerce in the year 2004. He has also provided all the particulars regarding qualifications, teaching experience, Research experience and other academic activities in the application submitted by him. When the Selection Committee has considered the application of the petitioner as well as 3rd respondent, it has found that the 3rd respondent is also guiding M.Phil and Ph.D scholars. Further, the 3rd respondent joined as Lecturer in the year 1981 in a Government aided college and thereafter, from 1986, he was working in a Government college. Therefore, the petitioner's comparison of 3rd respondent's qualification with the rules that came after several years i.e., during 2000, is not legally sustainable. Even the Rule also specially says the required qualification for appointment of Professor of Commerce is 10 years of experience in the Post Graduate teaching, and/or experience in research at the University/National Level institutions, including experience of guiding research at doctoral level, or an outstanding scholar with established reputation, who has made significant contribution to knowledge. This indicates clearly, that 10 years of experience in PG teaching alone is not the only qualification indicated. If in the judgment of the Selection Committee, the 3rd respondent has possessed sufficient experience in research at the University or an outstanding scholar, the said decision of the Selection Committee cannot be lightly interfered with. 7. The Selection Committee, has not only selected the 3rd respondent, but many other Researchers, Academicians, and has made its recommendation to Syndicate and the same were also accepted and approved. It is also relevant to note that the Selection Committee has selected not only the 3rd respondent, but several other candidates. Except the petitioner, no one had challenged either the selection of other candidates or the selection process. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the 1st respondent has not constituted a proper Selection Committee as envisaged under UGC Notification, 2000, does not carry any merit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. In this view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar rkm To 1.Bharathiyar University, Rep. by its Registrar, Coimbatore. 2.University Grants Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi. +1 C.C. to Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate – SR No.17816 +1 C.C. to Mr.N.Kavitha, Advocate – SR No.17790 W.P.No.7238 of 2008 17.03.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/