1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.10229 of 2011 And M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 V.Amsukodi : Petitioner vs. 1.The Directorate of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Joint Directorate of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, Shenoy Nagar, Madurai-625 020. 3.The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Palkalai Nagar, Madurai. 4.The District Registrar of Societies, O/o The District Registrar, Periyakulam Post, Theni District. 5.Mr.P.Balasubramanian 6.Mr.N.Palusamy 7.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai-28. : Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from approving the appointment proposal submitted by the fifth respondent in respect of sixth respondent appointment as Principal of Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Thevar College, Usilampatti and consequently direct the fourth respondent to pass appropriate orders on petitioner's application dated 14.7.2011 for approval of change in the Secretaryship of Kallar Kalvi Kazhagam, Usilampatti, Madurai District. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanakumar For Respondents-1,2,4&7 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader. For Respondent-3 : Mr.K.Mahendran, Special Government Pleader. For Respondent-6 : Mr.M.E.Ilango For Respondent-5 : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan for C.Venkatesh Kumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from granting approval to the proposal submitted by the fifth respondent for promoting the sixth respondent as the Principal of a Private Aided College. 2. Heard Mr.M.Saravanakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1, 2, 4 and 7, Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader for the third respondent-University and Mr.M.E.Ilango, learned counsel for the sixth respondent. 3. The fact that the College in question is a Private Aided College governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, is not in dispute. The petitioner was a member of the Managing Committee. The college appears to have convened a meeting of the College Committee on 13.8.2011 and selected the sixth respondent for promotion to the post of Principal of the College. Contending that the process of selection is vitiated and also contending that the sixth respondent is not qualified, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. At the outset, the petitioner has not challenged the resolution of the College Committee passed on 13.8.2011, selecting the sixth respondent for promotion. The petitioner merely seeks a Mandamus to direct the official respondents not to grant approval for the promotion. 5. Additionally, the petitioner was not one of the contestants for the post of Principal of the College. The petitioner was a member of the College Committee itself. It is seen from the copy of the resolution passed on 13.8.2011 that the College Committee comprised of 16 members, including the teaching staff, the Principal and non-teaching staff. Out of 16 members of the College Committee, only 3 members did not attend the meeting held on 13.8.2011. The petitioner was one among the 3 persons who did not attend the meeting of the College Committee. The 13 members who attended the meeting unanimously resolved to select the sixth respondent for promotion. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner, who was a member of the College Committee to challenge this selection. It is not the grievance of the petitioner that he did not have any notice of the meeting held on 13.8.2011. Therefore, there is a presumption that he had notice. If he had notice of the meeting, he ought to have attended the meeting and voiced his protest. Having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot seek a Mandamus. 6. As a person, who was a member of the very selection Committee, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the promotion of the sixth respondent. It is only a person who is aggrieved by his non-selection, who may be entitled to challenge the selection of the sixth respondent. 7. No person, who is entitled to be considered for promotion as Principal, has come up so far before this Court. If there are no rival candidates, who are aggrieved by their non-selection, a member of the selection Committee cannot seek the Mandamus of the nature prayed for. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed solely on the ground of lack of locus standi without expressing any opinion on the merits of the disputes https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 raised by the petitioner. 8. The writ petition is dismissed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Directorate of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Joint Directorate of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, Shenoy Nagar, Madurai-625 020. 3.The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Palkalai Nagar, Madurai. 4.The District Registrar of Societies, O/o The District Registrar, Periyakulam Post, Theni District. 5.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai-28. +1cc to Mr.M.Saravanakumar, Advocate, SR.No.37615 svn GH : 11.11.2011 : 3p/7c WP(MD) No.10229/2011 02-11-2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/