Dr. V. Sundararasu vs The Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Science University and Dr. A.M. Shanmugam

C. Shivappa, J.—The Appellant herein filed two writ petitions and sought for quashing the order in Proc. No. 20492/A1/96 and

5044/A1/96. dated 13.12.1996. with a direction to permit the Appellant to complete the term of Director of Research, in accordance with

Regulation 5(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, Statutes, Regulations and Rules.

The grievance of the Petitioner in both the writ petitions, in substance being the same, they were disposed of by a common order by the learned

single Judge. Hence, he has filed the above two writ appeals.

Mr. A.L. Somayaji. learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant contended that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate the import of

Regulation 5(1)(c) under which the tenure of the Appellant at the end of the 3rd year ought to have been reviewed by the Selection Committee

before calling the candidates for interview. Under Regulation 5(1)(c) the Selection Committee must have considered the qualification of the

Appellant and must have taken a decision on whether to continue his tenure or not before calling the other candidates for interview.

Hence, the only question for consideration in these appeals is that unless there is a review as per Regulation 5(1)(c), whether Respondents 1 and

2 are justified in initiating the process of selection ?

To answer this question, it is necessary to advert to certain facts, which are as follows: The Appellant herein joined the services of Respondent

No. 1, on 10.10.1969, as Veterinary Assistant. He was promoted on 4.10.1984 as Professor and further as Director of Research on 8.10.1992.

Sections 38 and 40 of the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') empowers to

frame the regulation prescribing the norms and procedures in appointing eligible professors as University Officers. University Officers include the

Post of Registrar Dean and Directors. The feeder category for the Post of University Officer is Professor cadre. Chapter III of the regulations deal

with qualifications of staff, recruitment and appointment Regulation 5 contemplates qualification and method of recruitment. Regulation 5(1)(a) to

(d) read thus:

(a) The Registrar/Deans/Directors shall hold a tenure post of three years.

(b) The University shall resort to recruiting Registrar/Deans/Directors by advertisement by circulation within the University/Secretariat and

selection.

(c) The tenure of the selected candidates shall be fixed as three years at a time and renewable after the review by the Selection Committee at the

end of each tenure.

(d) Professors/Associate Professors/Assistant Professors: The recruitment shall be by advertisement and selection as per the terms stipulate in

Appendix 1-A.

The regulation contemplates that a professor with eligible qualification, seniority and merit shall be considered for the post of University Officer,

which post the incumbent shall, hold for a period of three years. Under Regulation 5(1)(c), the tenure of selected candidates is renewable after the

review by the Selection Committee at the end of each tenure. If not renewed under 5(1)(c), the recruitment shall be under 5(1)(d) by

advertisement and selection as per the terms stipulated in Appendix 1-A.

In the instant case, Respondent No. 2 invited applications for the post of Director of Research, on 24.6.1996. The Appellant herein responded

to the advertisement and applied for the post of Director of Research and Directors. Centre for Animal Health Studies in the cadre of University

Officer. He received a communication titled as ''Interview Card'' and attended the interview on the notified dale. Respondent No. 3 herein who is

also a professor was one of the applicant called for the interview. The Appellant was not selected. Being unsuccessful, he has challenged the

appointment of Respondent No. 3. who was selected, on the ground that the post he was holding prior to the selection of Respondent No. 3 was

a tenure post and he is entitled for a renewal after review and ought to have reviewed first and later on called for selection and this non-observation

of the regulation as contemplated under 5(1)(c) being mandatory, the selection is bad in law.

The learned single Judge taking into consideration the conduct of the Appellant in responding to the advertisement and participating in the

interview, held that it is not open to the Appellant to challenge either the constitution of the Committee or the selection of the candidate viz. the

Respondent No. 3.

In Vidhyavathi, P. v. The Chairman, T.N. Public Service Commission 1991 Writ L.R. 389, this Court has taken the view that the party who

complains of violation of any rule with reference to selection for appointment should not be permitted to raise such a grievance after having

participated and taken his chance in the selection process, following the view taken in Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and

Others, .

The Petitioner filed W.P. No. 18687 of 1996 on 10.12.1996, seeking for a direction to extend the term for a further period of three years and

later on, withdrew the petition and the interview- was held on 23.10.1996. He did not assert his right if at all available under 5(1)(c) after renewal.

But, instead, without raising any objection, participated in the selection process and ultimately failed. It is this conduct of the Appellant in not

asserting his right for review, subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of the selecting committee for selection, disentitles him to question the process of

selection, that too when he was not selected. However, the fact remains that the post, held by the Appellant herein, according to the terms of the

order issued to him, was only an incharge arrangement, when the person holding the post was transferred to some other post, but later assumed

the office. In this fact situation, the question also emerges whether he was selected to substantive post? Where he was only an incharge

arrangement, he cannot claim that he was selected for substantive post in the existing vacancy as he has a lien or a right to seek review. Having the

knowledge that he was placed in in-charge arrangement, rightly participated in the selection process and knowing the nature of the order,

subsequently he cannot now seek the right of renewal. Therefore, the Appellant herein is not entitled to complain about the non-compliance of

Regulation 5(1)(c) or to question the process taken under Regulation 5(1)(d).

For the reasons stated above, we see no ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge and both the appeals are liable to be

dismissed. Accordingly dismissed without costs. Consequently, the connected C.M. Ps. are also dismissed.