AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Sudhakar, J.—The Petitioner, who is working as Associate Professor in C. Abdul Hakeem College, Melvisharam, Vellore, applied for
selection to the post of Professor of Zoology in the Respondent University in response to notification No. 11/2010 dated 9.5.2010 advertised by
the Thiruvalluvar University. In the said notification, it has been stated that qualification for the post of Professor, Associate Professor, etc will be
as per the norms of the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the UGC). The interview to the said post was held on 22.9.2010.
According to the Petitioner, six other candidates and the Petitioner, seven in all, attended the interview. After participating in the interview, the
Petitioner has filed this writ petition to forbear the Respondents from publishing the results of the selection.
According to the Petitioner, the Committee constituted for selection to the post of Professor of Zoology is not in accordance with the norms
prescribed by the UGC and it is also contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 112 Higher Education (H1) Department dated 24.3.1999 and therefore, the
selection process is bad and any selection made contrary to the above will be bad.
Notice of motion was ordered on 1.10.2010. An order of interim injunction was granted. The Respondents were noticed. A counter affidavit
has been filed by both the Respondents signed by the Registrar of Thiruvalluvar University.
The contention of the Petitioner is that the Selection Committee did not include the Dean of the faculty and the Head of the Department
concerned, which is mandatory. Therefore, in the absence of these two persons, the constitution of the Selection Committee is bad. It is the further
contention of the Petitioner that the nomination of one Dr. Bhaskaran, Chairman of Tamilnadu State Council for Higher Education and Dr.
Vaidhyanathan, Vice Chancellor of Tamilnadu Sports University as members of the Selection Committee is contrary to the UGC norms and the
Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 112 Education (H1) dated 24.3.1999. Their presence in the Selection Committee, therefore, vitiates the
selection process. It is also the contention of the Petitioner that he belongs to religious minority category and therefore, as per Clause 5.1.2 of the
norms of the UGC dated 30.6.2010, one of the members of the Selection Committee should belong to SC/ST/OBC/ Minority/Women/Differently
Abled categories. Of the six other candidates, who applied for selection, three of them belonged to minority community. It is, therefore, necessary
that the Selection Committee should have consisted of a member from the minority community. The constitution of the Selection Committee is bad
for non inclusion of a minority community member and the entire committee is incompetent to do the selection process. He, therefore, prayed that
result of the selection by the present Selection Committee should be withheld and a new Committee should be formed complying with the UGC
guidelines and the Government Order as well.
Mr. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General, referring to the counter affidavit, stated that the regulations of the UGC referred to by the
Petitioner namely 30.6.2010 will not apply to the facts of the present case, as it is prospective in nature. The notification calling for applications is
dated 9.5.2010 and therefore, Clause 5.1.2.(a)(6) of the UGC norms dated 30.6.2010 will not apply to the facts of the present case.
In so far as the constitution of the Selection Committee is concerned, the regulations, 2000 of the UGC, which is applicable as on the date of the
notification dated 9.5.2010 is as follows:
3.3.0 For the post of Reader:
The process of selection should involve inviting the bio data and reprints of three major publications of the candidate before interview and getting
them assessed by the same three external experts who are to be invited to interview the candidate. The selection committee should have the
following composition:
Vice Chancellor to be the Chairperson of 6 the selection committee;
An academician who is the nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor;
Three experts in the concerned subject/field out of the list recommended by the Vice Chancellor and approved by the Executive
Council/Syndicate.
Dean of the faculty.
Head/Chairperson of the Department.
At least four members, including two outside experts, must constitute the quorum.
3 .4.0 F or the post of Professor:
The process of selection should involve inviting the bio data and reprints of three major publications of which one could be a book or research
report before the interview, and getting them assessed by the same three external experts who are to be invited for the interview. The assessment
report must be placed before the selection committee. The composition of the selection committee for the post of a Professor will be the same as
proposed for the post of a Reader.
It may be ensured that the process of selection in every case is transparent and credible.
In the case of posts of Readers and Professors in Colleges besides the Chairperson Governing Body, the Principal of the college and the Head of
the Department, there will be two University representatives, one of whom will be the Dean of College or equivalent position in the University, who
will substitute the visitor''s nominee and the VC should be substituted by the VC''s nominee.
(emphasis supplied)
The UGC Regulations, 2000 and G.O. Ms. No. 112 dated 24.3.1999 are pari materia and they have been followed in the process of selection.
Mr. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General referred to the counter affidavit and submitted that in respect of S. No. 1, there is no
dispute that the Vice Chancellor of the first Respondent University has to chair the meeting. Insofar as S. No. 2 is concerned, the Vice Chancellor
has nominated one Prof.R. Balasubramanian, Director, Faculty of Science and Humanities, SRM University, Kattankulathur. In respect of S. No.
3, the following Professors and Heads of the Department were nominated:
a. Dr. Arumugam, Professor and Head, Department of Zoology, University of Madras, Guindy Campus, Chennai-25 (belongs to Scheduled Caste
community).
b. Dr. Sasikala, Professor and Head, Department of Zoology, Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore.
c. Dr. Mullai Nathan, Professor, Department of Zoology, University of Madras, Guindy Campus,Chennai-25.
Insofar as S. No. 4 - the Dean of faculty is concerned, there is no person occupying the post of Dean in Thiruvalluvar University. Insofar as S. No.
5 is concerned, as on the date of selection, there is no Head of Department for Zoology and the post is held by an Assistant Professor as in charge
and is also a candidate and therefore, an alternative as provided under law was considered.
In respect of these two members i.e Sl. Nos. 4 and 5 is concerned, the Additional Advocate General stated that insofar as the Dean of faculty is
concerned, the Vice Chancellor, exercising power u/s 46(2) of the Thiruvalluvar University Act, 2002 (Act 32 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as
the Act), inducted Dr. K. Vaidhyanathan, Vice Chancellor, Tamilnadu Sports and Physical Education University as a member of the Selection
Committee to perform the functions as member of the Selection Committee. The Government, in exercise of powers u/s 44 of the Act, inducted
Dr. S. Bhaskaran, Member Secretary, Tamilnadu State Council for Higher Education to participate in the selection process. In all, seven persons
constituted the Committee for the purpose of selecting the candidate for the post of Associate Professor of Zoology. Learned Additional Advocate
General justified the inclusion of Dr. Vaidhyanathan stating that Section 46(2) of the Act provides that when the office of the Dean is vacant or for
the reasons stated therein, the duties of the office shall be performed by such other person as Vice Chancellor may appoint for that purpose.
In the same lines, referring to Section 44(2) of the Act, which provides the manner in which the Selection Committee should be constituted and
conducted, he stated that sub. section (2) to Section 44 of the Act empowers the Government to nominate a person. In view of the specific
provision in the Act, the inclusion of Dr. Bhaskaran and Dr. Vaidhyanathan in the Selection Committee cannot be found fault with.
The first issue that requires to be considered in this case is as to whether the regulations of the UGC dated 30.6.2010 will apply to the facts of
the present case. Admittedly, the notification for selection is dated 9.5.2010. The UGC has issued the regulations in March 2000 and that holds
the field as on date of issuance of the selection notification. The amended or new regulations dated 30.6.2010 will not be applicable to the
notification issued earlier. It will operate prospectively i.e on and from 30.6.2010 in terms of Clause 1.3. The first contention of the Petitioner that
Clause 5.1.2(a)(6) of the norms of the UGC has been violated therefore fails.
The regulations of the UGC issued in March 2000 is applicable as on date of issuance of the notification clearly provide that three experts in
the concerned subject should be part of the Selection Committee and it has been complied. Insofar as Selection Committee is concerned, the
regulations of the UGC prescribe that it should be by a quorum. What will be the number to constitute a quorum, differs in respect of various
categories. Insofar as the Lecturer in a private college is concerned, as per Clause 3.1.0, quorum for the meeting is stated to be 5, of which, at
least two must be from out of the three subject experts. In the case of Reader and Professor, it states that the quorum should consist at least four
members, including two outside experts.
In the instant case, there are three experts appointed, who are outsiders. Besides that, two experts were nominated by the Vice Chancellor.
Therefore, the only difficulty that is pointed out by the Petitioner is that Dr. Vaidhyanathan cannot be considered to be falling under the category of
Dean of faculty and Dr. Baskaran will not fall under the category of Head of Department.
It is the stand of the Respondent that Dr. Bhaskaran has not been appointed as the Head of the Department, but has been appointed as a
nominee of the Government in exercise of the powers u/s 44(2) of the Act. If the Act empowers the Government, then, such nomination cannot be
questioned.
Section 46(2) of the Thiruvalluvar University Act, 2002 reads as follows:
(2) When the office of the Dean is vacant or when the Dean is by reason of illness, absence or any other cause, unable to perform the duties of his
office, the duties of his office shall be performed by such person as the Vice Chancellor may appoint for the purpose.
In the present case, admittedly, there was no Dean of Faculty and in order to comply with the requirement of UGC Regulations, 2000, the Vice
Chancellor in exercise of his power u/s 46(2) of the Act, nominated one person to perform the duties of the Dean of Faculty in the selection
process. The distinction in performance of the duties by the Dean of Faculty is evident from a reading of Section 46(1) and the duties in Section
46(2). In the present case, the person nominated by the Vice Chancellor is only to discharge the duties as member of the Selection Committee. In
case of exigencies as in the present case, the Act gives the power to the Vice Chancellor to include one member under this category. The person
inducted does not perform his duties as Dean of Faculty on a regular appointment as envisaged u/s 46(1). Hence, the nomination of Dr.
Vaidhyanathan, as a Member of the Selection Committee is in exercise of the power u/s 46(2) of the Thiruvalluvar University Act and therefore,
the constitution of the Selection Committee is in order and this cannot be faulted.
If the Respondents have complied with the requirement of the norms of the UGC and the said Government Order, whereby the quorum for the
meeting consists of at least four members, out of whom, two are outside experts, then, the Petitioner cannot have a grievance.G.O. Ms. No. 112
dated 24.3.1999 is no different from the regulations of the UGC issued in March 2000. Since the Selection Committee is represented by full
complement and the quorum is as specified, the selection process cannot be found fault.
In this case, admittedly, many of the candidates 14 belonging to minority community have participated in the selection process and this Court
having held that the regulations of the UGC issued in June 2010 will not hold the field, the Petitioner can have no grievance insofar as the
constitution of the Selection Committee is concerned. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Selection Committee does not suffer from
irregularity or illegality or that it is in violation of the norms of the UGC. The order of injunction granted on 1.10.2010 is vacated.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is also dismissed.