Annamalai University Rep.By Registrar vs Secy. To Govt. Infn &Toursm; Dept & Ors

2. Indisputably, N. Ramesh (Ramesh) and Sibi Madan Gabriel (Gabriel) were candidates for appointment to the post of Principal in Film and Television Institute (for short, "the Institute") of Tamil Nadu. Gabriel was appointed temporarily as a `Lecturer in Acting' in the Institute on or about 26.5.1982. His services were regularized with retrospective effect from the date of his joining by an order dated 20.2.1992. He was subsequently promoted as Head of Section by G.O.Ms. No. 236 dated 17.8.1993. The 3 next avenue of promotion from the post of Head of Section is the post of Principal in the Institute. In the year 2000, Ramesh was given the additional charge to the post of Principal. Gabriel filed an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"), which was marked as O.A. No. 5275 of 2000 questioning the legality of the said appointment on the ground that Ramesh did not have the requisite essential educational qualification for the post of Principal.

3. The Tribunal, by its judgment and order dated 14.8.2000, directed the State to consider the objections of Gabriel having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the said post vis-`-vis those possessed by Ramesh. The challenge to the qualification of Ramesh was that he did not possess a basic graduation degree and, thus, the post-graduation degree conferred on him by appellant - University is invalid in law. At that stage, the State appointed one Mr. K. Loganathan, which was challenged by Ramesh by way of O.A. No. 2085 of 2003 before the Tribunal. Said application was dismissed by the Tribunal by reason of an order dated 5.1.2004. Ramesh challenged the said order of the Tribunal by filing a writ petition marked as Writ Petition No. 841 of 2004, which had become infructuous as after retirement of said Mr. K. Loganathan, Ramesh was 4 appointed as the Principal by order dated 6.12.2004. Gabriel challenged the said appointment of Ramesh by filing Writ Petition No. 36307 of 2004.

4. Indisputably, during the pendency of the said writ petition, Gabriel filed W.M.P. No. 43649 of 2004 for stay, which was granted. Ramesh filed W.V.M.P. No. 2428 of 2004 for vacating the stay which was rejected by the learned single judge by order dated 21.6.2005. Writ appeals were preferred thereagainst by Ramesh as also State Government and the Director of Information and Public Relation, which were marked as Writ Appeal No. 1221 of 2005 and Writ Appeal No. 82 of 2006. By reason of judgment and order dated 14.2.2006, while allowing the writ appeals, writ petition preferred by Gabriel was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

Government Institute of Film Technology, Madras for not less than five years.

iii) Experience for a period of not less than ten years in film Technology, of which at least five years shall be in teaching in a Film Institute.

(iv) Whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66 of the Union List or is repugnant to the 36 law made by the center under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, will have to be determined by the examination of the two laws and will depend upon the facts of each case.

31. There is no quarrel with the aforementioned proposition of law. Regulation 2, however, is not contrary to Open University Act and, thus, the said decisions will have no application.

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the High Court is correct in rendering the opinion in the manner it did in its judgment. 45

In view of a long pending litigation, in our opinion, it will be unjust to deprive the writ petitioner - respondent from his lawful demand. We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a case where discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked. 46

34. With the aforementioned reasons, we find no merit in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs.

FEBRUARY 25, 2009