1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 28.11.2011 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No: 10953 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2011 Nattuthurai .. Petitioner -Vs- The Christian Institute for Technical Education (Polytechnic College) rep. By its Correspondent Rev.E.Richard, Oddanchatram-624 619, Dindigul District. .. Respondent Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 16.09.2011 read with impugned notice bearing Ref.CITE/Notice/5-851/2011, dated 29.06.2011 passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to retransfer the petitioner to Computer Engineering Department in the respondent Polytechnic College. For Petitioner:Mr.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondent:Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam ORDER The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the order of the Correspondent of a self-financing polytechnic, refusing to entertain the request of the petitioner to be retained in service. 2.Heard Mr.Prasanna Vinoth, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam, the learned counsel for the respondent. 3.The respondent is a Christian Minority Unaided Education Institution. This fact is not in doubt. The petitioner holds a post graduate degree namely M.Sc in computer Science. He also holds a M.Phil degree. 4.The petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in the Engineering College run by the respondent to take computer classes with effect from 04.12.2006. According to the petitioner, he continued to serve in the Computer Engineering Department upto 12.07.2010. Though the respondent claims that the Computer Engineering Department was bifurcated into Computer Engineering and Information Technology Department in 2008 and that the petitioner was transferred to the Information Technology Department, from July 2008, the said fact may be of no relevance for this case. 5.The fact remains that in the year 2010, the petitioner was transferred to the Humanities and Sciences Department. After transfer, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.06.2011, calling upon the petitioner to find a suitable employment elsewhere, on the ground that the change of syllabus, from the academic year resulted in his being rendered surplus in the Humanities and Sciences Department. Though the notice was actually a three months notice, the petitioner came up with the writ petition in W.P.No.9809 of 2011. 6.The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 29.08.2011 directing the respondent to consider the representation of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner. In pursuance of the said order, the respondent considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected his request for retention in service. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 7.The fact that the petitioner holds only the qualifications of M.Sc and M.Phil is not in dispute. The fact that as per the AICTE norms, a decree in Engineering is a must for a lecturer to teach the Computer Engineering cannot be disputed. Since the petitioner does not have a degree in Engineering, he was shifted in 2010 to the Humanities and Sciences Department. Hence the shifting cannot be found fault with. Even today, it is not the case of the petitioner that he is fully qualified to teach in the Computer Engineering Department, as per AICTE norms. Therefore the shifting of the petitioner to the Humanities and Sciences Department cannot be found fault with. 8.According to the petitioner, the other persons were given chance to qualify after appointment. The denial of such a chance to the petitioner is fatal according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9.But, I could hardly accept the said argument. If a person appointed to a particular post fulfils the minimum educational qualification and has not passed some tests such as NET, SLET, he can be given some time to qualify. But a person, who does not have the basic degree namely B.E in Computer Engineering cannot be given any chance to acquire the said qualification hereafter even while allowing him to continue in employment. Therefore the transfer of the petitioner to the Humanities and Sciences Department cannot be taken exception to. 10.Insofar as retrenchment is concerned, the respondent has given a valid reason namely that in the Humanities and Sciences Department, the syllabus was revised leading to the post of the petitioner becoming surplus. Hence, the decision to retrench the petitioner cannot also be found fault with. 11.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are other persons including the Principal who continue without holding valid qualifications, the said fact can be a ground only for sending out all those unqualified persons. The fact that other unqualified persons are allowed to continue will give a right to the petitioner to send all of them out, but not to get retained without the qualifications. 12.In view of the above, I find no justification to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( Writs ) /TRUE COPY/ vs SUB ASST REGISTRAR To:: The Christian Institute for Technical Education (Polytechnic College) rep. By its Correspondent Rev.E.Richard, Oddanchatram-624 619, Dindigul District. DM:2011:DEC:16:: W.P.(MD)No.10953 of 2011 2P:2c:: 28.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/