AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner an associated professor in the department of Entomology in the respondent University filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus to set aside the proceedings of the respondent University in Memo No.34702/AHRDP/Trg./A2/98, dated 12-7-1999 as it is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent University to consider his case for short term training programme abroad in the specialised areas of Biochemical basis of host plant resistance in insects or Biocontrol agents in plant protection under Agricultural and Human Resources Development Programme (for short ''AHRDP'') for the academic year 1999-2000, duly declaring that lie is within the age limit prescribed for deputation as on 31-1-1999; the last date for receipt of applications from the eligible candidates pursuant to the 1st notification issued by the respondent University in Memo No.14028/AHRDP/Trg./A2/98, dated 28-12-1998/4-1-1999.
The respondents University in their counter contended that after issuance of the 1st notification dated 28-12-1998/4-1-1999, calling applications from the eligible candidates for deputation to abroad under the above scheme in the left over 23 topics, the Mid-Term Review Team of the World Bank Mission having reviewed the implementation programme increased 28 more topics in three faculties by 31-3-1999. Further, the Board of Management having considered the representation of certain Technical Officers working with Deans, adopted a resolution declaring those officers and Farm Staff of the Colleges also eligible to attend the said programme. In view of these above two developments, the University has taken a decision to issue a fresh notification inviting applications from the eligible candidates for all the fifty topics (23 old + 27 new). Accordingly, a fresh notification was issued in Memo No.34702/ AHRDP/ABRD TRG/A2/99, dated 30-4-1999 fixing the last for receipt of the applications as 25-5-1999. In the said notification it is also observed that the teachers who have already submitted their applications to the 23 old topics in pursuance to the 1st notification need not apply again for those topics. However, they may apply for the new topics now identified, since the topics and departments are overlapping in the earlier 23 topics and also new 27 topics identified, with a view to provide a chance to the teachers who already applied for the 23 old topics to apply for the new 27 topics and also to enable others who could not apply in pursuance of the earlier notification (1st notification) to avail the opportunity, and the cut-off date was fixed as 25-5-1999. In other words, the case of the respondent University is that to provide opportunity to maximum number of teachers and not to eliminate any one, the cut-off date to consider the eligibility criteria was fixed at 25-5-1999. It is also their case that as per the guidelines concerning deputation under the project, the selection of the candidates for deputation shall be made by a selection committee. As most of the teachers are eligible for deputation both for the old and new topics, to avoid the meeting of the selection committee twice for the same subject and also the hardship that is likely to be caused to the teachers in attending the interview twice and to have uniformity in the process of selection, the University was compelled to fix the cut-off date as 25-5-1999.
Nextly, it is contended that the selections were completed in the month of June, 1999 and the Board of Management having approved the list of selected candidates at its meeting held on 15-6-1999, forwarded the same to the Indian Council of Agriculture and Research (ICAR) apart from informing the candidates about their selection. As the writ petition was filed long after the selection process was over i.e., on 27-7-1999, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches. Further, as no legal right of the petitioner was infringed by the respondent University, the relief sought for, being discretionary may not be granted to the petitioner.
From the above pleadings it has to be seen that:
(1) Whether any legal right vested in the petitioner has been infringed by the respondent - University;
(2) Whether the respondent - University adopted different procedures while selecting the candidates for the academic years 1996-97 and 1997-98 resulting in hostile discrimination against the petitioner resulting in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and
(3) Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches.
Before deciding these issues I would like to refer to the scheme underlying implementation of the said programme.
It is not in dispute that this project was sanctioned by the Government and is fully funded by the World Bank and the scheme is for a period of five years commencing from the academic year 1995 to 2000. This project was launched by the Government in the respondent - University to achieve:
(a) Enhancing the teaching skills through staff training;
(b) Upgrading student education; and
(c) Improving the University administration.
The teaching competence of the teachers was proposed to be enhanced through staff training both in India and Abroad; participation in seminars, workshops. The terms and conditions prescribed, to the extent that is required to adjudicate the issue on hand, on the launching of the scheme can be seen from the proceedings No.141/AHRDP/96, dated 25-1-1996, and they are as follows:
Eligibility:
(1) Teachers with a minimum of 10 years active service in the APAU excluding the study leave/deputation period for acquiring M.Sc./Ph.D. degree are eligible.
(2) The teachers should have a minimum of 5 years teaching experience during the preceding 7 years at the time of application.
(3) Any teacher who has been deputed for training abroad for a period of more than 15 days during the preceding 3 years is not eligible for deputation again for training abroad.
(4) Age: The candidate should not have completed 50 years of age on the last date for receipt of applications.
Selection of candidates:
(1) Applications should be invited from the interested and eligible candidates for consideration.
(2) Applications have to be screened and all eligible candidates shall be called for interview before the selection committee comprising of;
Vice-Chancellor : Chairman Registrar : Secretary Dean of Concerned Faculty : Member Dean of PG studies : Member University Head of the concerned Department : Member. (3) For each identified topic the candidates shall be selected in order of merit based on academic record, suitability, aptitude and interview performance.
(4) Where the same topic is identified for training in both Indian and abroad, separate panels should be prepared for external training and internal training.
(5) Teachers selected for training programmes abroad exceeding one month duration, but less than one year should execute a bond to serve the University for a minimum period of three years.
(6) The candidates deputed for training abroad shall be paid the pay and allowances during the period of deputation as mentioned therein.
According to the counter filed by the respondent-University for the block period of 5 years 92 topics were selected, during the academic years 1996-97 and 1997-98 about 69 teachers were deputed for training abroad leaving a balance of 23 topics for the academic year 1999-2000. After issuance of the 1st notification on 28-12-1998/4-1-1999 inviting applications from the eligible teachers to select the candidates for deputation to the remaining topics in the Mid Term Review under taken by the World Bank Mission, though additional "28 topics were added, the University identified only 27 topics in three faculties by31-3-1999.
Further it has to be seen from the note to the Board of management under item No.7 in the agenda for the Board''s meeting held on 22-SO-1998, that in five specialised faculties like Agricultural Engineering, Veterinary Sciences, Home Science etc., there were no eligible candidates for the academic years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99, who are within the age of 50 years as prescribed under the guidelines of the scheme. In those circumstances, as per the note circulated by the Registry for the Board meeting dated 30-9-1998, the upper age limit to be increased to 53 years from 50 years and if no eligible candidate is available within the 53 years also it may further be relaxed to 54 years of age. Ultimately, the Board of management at its 152nd meeting held on 22-10-1998 in its resolution No.5979 seemed to have considered the note circulated by the Registry and taken a decision to increase the upper age limit for determining the age of teachers for training abroad to 55 years instead of 50 years.
Pursuant to the said resolution, the University issued revised orders in Proceedings No. 11494/AHRDP/A2/98, dated 12-12-1998. As per the revised orders, the eligibility criteria is fixed as minimum service in the University for 5 years, the upper age limit is increased to 55 years as on the last date of receipt of the applications. The teacher shall have a minimum of three years teaching experience during the preceding 5 years, study leave period shall not be considered for counting 5 years service. Under paragraph No.2 of the Proceedings, even after inviting applications wilh relaxed criteria if no eligible teacher is available in a particular discipline, the topic may be transferred to some other discipline.
Coming to the deputation of the candidates abroad for training for the academic year 1999-2000, the University by its memo No.14028/AHRDP/Trg./A2/98, dated 28-12-1998/4-1-1999,'' invited applications from the eligible candidates for deputation abroad for advanced training discipline-wise and faculty-wise as shown in annexure No.1, fixing the last date for receipt of the applications as 23-1-1999 and the same was extended to 31-1-1999 by another memo on 19-1-1999. Pursuant to this notification the petitioner applied for the training programme for two topics viz. Biochemical basis of host plant resistance in insects and Biocontrol agents in plant protection under AHRD Programme. Subsequently, in the light of the changed circumstances stated supra, the University issued a fresh notification in memo dated 30-4-1999 inviting applications for 50 topics (23 old and 27 new) fixing the last date for receipt of the applications as 15-5-1999 and the same seemed to have been extended to 25-5-1999. In this notification, it is clearly stated that after issuance of the 1st notification, the University decided to increase the total number of topics for short term training abroad to 120 from the existing 92 in the block-period of 1995-2000 and as already 69 teachers were deputed in the previous years, the applications are invited for the remaining 23 topics and also to the 27 new topics. The notification further states that as per the Proceedings No.888/AHRDP/TRG,/98, dated 26-4-1999 of the University, it is decided to extend the facility to the teachers working in administrative office under Deans in AHRDP section and Examination section and the teachers working as farm management staff in college farms apart from the teachers working in research projects or any other scientific staff attending to teaching or atleast incharge of one course in each semister during the preceding 5 years.
From the above terms and conditions underlying the eligibility criteria for deputation to undergoing short training abroad as modified from time to time, it is seen that initially the University fixed the upper age limit for eligibility at 50 years with a view to derive optimum advantage in improving the teaching skills for over a number of years, as considerable amounts are to be spent in deputing them for training, but from the note circulated for consideration of the Board of Management at its meeting held on 22-10-1998, it is seen that for over a period of 4 years, the University could not get the eligible candidates in five specialised topics within the age limit prescribed initially, and the University was forced to re-consider the fixation of the upper age limit both due to non-availability of the required candidates and also the representations received from the teaching staff. In fact, as per the note circulated it is seen that the Registrar suggested increase in the upper age limit to 53 years and if candidates are not available even with 53 years, it may be relaxed 10 54 years. Even after that relaxation if no eligible teacher is available from any discipline, the topic may be transferred to some other discipline. But, the Board of Management felt it desirable to enhance the upper age limit to 55 years perhaps with a view to widen the eligibility criteria, so that in the process of selection best among the eligible candidates can be selected for training.
Nextly, it is seen that a candidate who fulfilled the eligibility criteria cannot get a right for deputation and he has to undergo the process of selection before a selection committee constituted for the purpose and the candidates have to be selected in order of merit based on academic record, suitability, aptitude and interview performance. Further, it is seen that deputation for advanced training abroad is not a condition of service and it is only intended to select the best among the available eligible candidates to get maximum benefit in improving the teaching skills for the benefit of the student community. Hence, mere fulfilment of the eligibility criteria does not confer any legal right or cause any stigma on his teaching abilities if he is not selected. Even assuming without admitting that the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria, his selection is not automatic and it is always open to the selection committee to reject his case. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that there are no teachers in the faculty who fulfilled the educational and experience qualifications with a lesser age than him. Accordingly. I hold that the petitioner has no legal right whatsoever, to compel the University to send him for training abroad.
Further, the Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent University followed different standards for selection of the candidates in different academic years and as such the action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention he drew my attention to a notification issued by the respondent University in memo No.141/ AHRDP/96, dated S-8-1996 wherein applications were invited for advanced training abroad for the academic years 1996-97. As per this notification, keeping in view the non-availability of the teachers within the prescribed age of 50 years, it is mentioned in the notification that the teachers who exceeded 50 years but below 55 years as on 31-8-1996 may apply for training, but, their applications may be considered subject to relaxation of the Board of Management. It is also seen that because of the non-availability of the candidates, the University decided to conduct selections for the academic years 1995-96 and 1996-97 simultaneously and fixed the last date for receipt of the applications as 7-9-1996. From this it is seen that in the meetings held on 5-12-1996 and 5-1-1997, the University have decided to further relax the conditions subject to approval of the modification of the rules by the Board of Management and invited applications from the eligible candidates as per modified eligibility criteria as on 17-9-1996 perhaps as sufficient number of eligible candidates are not available and responded to the pervious notification. It is also mentioned that the eligible teachers of College of Agricultural Engineering, who did not apply in response to the notification dated 8-8-1996 were also permitted to send their applications then. As per this notification the last date for receipt of the applications was fixed as 15-2-1997.
From the above it is seen that no two cut-off dates were fixed for selection of candidates in any academic year as contended by the Counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand it is seen that the University seemed to have issued notification inviting applications on 25-1-1996 and the required number of candidates seemed to have not responded to the notification. In the next notification dated 8-8-1996, they invited applications even from the persons who crossed the age of 50 years and below 55 years, subject to the relaxation of the age limit by the Board of Management. Even then required number of candidates seemed to have not responded. In those circumstances, the third notification dated 19-1-1997 was issued giving further relaxation in the teaching experience, again subject to the relaxation of the modification of the rules by the Board of Management. Ultimately, the Board of Management adopted the resolution No.5979 at its 152nd meeting held on 22-10-1998. It is only after revised guidelines were issued on 12-12-1998, pursuant to the above resolution the candidates for the four years i.e., 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 were selected. In fact, the Co-ordinator. Agricultural Water Resource Unit of the World Bank Mission, in his letter dated 27-1-1997 addressed to the Principal Secretary (Agriculture), Government of Andhra Pradesh observed as follows:
"x x x x x . For sorting out issues on overseas training and other activities involving the ICAR educational division it is proposed to convene a meeting during the last week of January, 1997. Mr. Mehta, DDG, ICAR will be writing to you shortly on this subject. Your presence at this meeting would be valuable.
The project is almost two years old, but the Bank is yet to get even a single reimbursement claim from GOAP. I hope GOAP would active steps to accelerate project implementation and better utilisation of the available credit."
From the above it is seen that this project was launched during the academic year 1995-96 and the same could not be implemented by the Agricultural University for almost four years due to non-availability of the candidates with the eligibility criteria prescribed for deputation for advanced training abroad. In those circumstances, the respondent - University went on extending the cut-off date, but in no academic year it has selected the candidates on the basis of two cut-off dates as contended by the Counsel for the petitioner.
As far as academic year 1999-2000 is concerned, the respondent University'' in their counter categorically stated with cogent reasons for issuance of second notification by superseding the cut-off date fixed in the earlier notification dated 28-12-1998/4-1-1999 as modified by notification dated 30-4-1999 fixing the cut- off date is 15-5-1999 farther extended to 25-5-1999. The reasons given are
(1) As per the report of the Mid Term Review Team of World Bank Mission 27 new topics in three faculties were added to the 23 left over topics for the block period 1995-2000.
(2) The Board of Management in its resolution No.6118 at its meeting held on 30/31-3-1999 resolved to consider the cases of three more categories of teachers as detailed supra.
(3) The 23 left over topics and 27 new topics identified are overlapping with each other and the teachers who responded to earlier notification acquired eligibility for some more new topics identified subsequent to the issue of the earlier notification.
(4) The candidates have to be selected by selection committee and if two cutoff dates have to be observed, the selection committee has to meet twice and the candidates eligible both for old and new topics have also to appear for the interview twice.
(5) To achieve uniformity in the process of selection, the cut-off date was fixed for all the applicants for selection of the candidates for the academic year 1999-2000.
Further, the petitioner is fully aware of the fact that he is not eligible to apply for the new topics, but as per his un-dated representation, he applied on 19-5-1999 for two more new topics. At any rate the petitioner has not contended that the cut-off date was changed in bad-faith and to defeat his claim. Hence, I hold that, for valid and cogent reasons the University changed the cut-off date.
For the above reasons I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the respondent University followed different standards for selection of candidates in different academic years.
Coming to the aspect of latches, the petitioner was fully aware on the date when the respondent University issued 2nd notification itself (31 -4-1999) that as per the cut-off date he has crossed the age of 55 years, but he did not chose to approach this Court then itself questioning the action of the respondent University. In fact, in pursuance of the second notification, or even on his own admission he applied for two more topics under the new topics on 19-5-1999. It is also not in dispute that the interviews were held for selection of candidates in the first week of June, 1999 and the Board of Management approved the list of selection candidates. Even then, he did not approach this Court immediately. Thereafter the respondent University in its memo No. 16188/AHRDP/Trg./A2/99 dated 16-7-1999 having informed the selection to the candidates concerned directed them to submit FAO nominations and also to furnish information as required in the FAO nomination form in six sets with a checklist counter-signed by the concerned Principal and forward the same to reach the Director (WB) AHRDP, on or before 24-7-1999 which were intern to be sent to ICAR. The selected candidates were also directed to execute bond on Non-Judicial Stamp Paper worth Rs. 100-00 for security in the prescribed proforma at the time of going abroad for training.
It is the case of the respondent University in their counter that having received the FAO nomination forms they were duly forwarded to ICAR also and the writ petition was filed only on 27-7-1999 i.e., much after completion of the entire process of selection.
From the material papers filed by the petitioner it is seen that he made a representation before the Registrar of the respondent-University but the date on which the representation was made was neither given on the representation nor in the affidavit filed in support of the petition.
Hence, I cannot set the clock in reverse direction at this length of time, more so when some other candidates, in the topics applied by the petitioner, were selected by the University who were not impleaded as party respondents in this WP. So on the ground of latches also the writ petition has to fail.
The Counsel for the petitioner nextly contended that the respondent University selected one Mr. T. V. Gowt, Assistant Professor in the Department of Entomology for advanced training in Bio-Chemical Basis of Host Plant Resistance in Insects, who has not even applied within the stipulated time.
The respondent University in their counter stated that Mr. Gowt is specialist in the topic for which he was considered and by sending him for overseas training, the University will be benefited. As per the respondents University he could not apply in time as he was away from India due to a serious accident to his son abroad and he returned to India only after the last date for receipt of the application was over. On the basis of the representation made by him his case was considered by the selection committee based on his performance, for training abroad.
In view of the peculiar circumstances, in which Mr. Gowt was placed at the time when the University invited applications, I do not find any illegality or irregularity on the part of the University in considering his case by the selection committee on the basis of a representation made by him.
While addressing arguments, the Counsel for the petitioner contends that as one person from computer Science Department who crossed the age of 55 years was selected, there is no reason for rejecting the case of the petitioner at the threshold for no fault of him.
As this issue was raised during the course of arguments, the University has no opportunity either to accept or to deny the allegation made by the Counsel for the petitioner. Even assuming that the selection Committee committed a mistake in selection the above individual, I cannot grant the relief sought for by the petitioner in the petition on the ground that an illegality was committed by the respondent University. It is settled law that an illegality committed by the respondents do not confer any right on a person who approached the Court seeking similar relief in the absence of a legal right vested in him. Hence, this contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is also rejected.
In view of the above findings on the issues that cropped up for decision in this Court, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. But, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.