AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.K. Sasidharan, J.—Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the notification issued by Arulmigu Palaniandavar College of Arts & Culture, calling for applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors.
BRIEF FACTS:
The petitioners are stated to be working as Guest Lecturers at Arulmigu Palaniandavar College of Arts & Culture. They are Guest Lecturers working under the hope that they would be made permanent.
While so, the fourth respondent issued a notification dated 30 January, 2014, calling for application for direct recruitment. The notification contains details of 31 posts of Assistant Professors.
The notification is challenged on the ground that the Management erred in fixing a cut-off date with regard to possession of required qualification. The other ground relates to the failure to follow 200 point roster system.
The Secretary, Arulmigu Palaniandavar College of Arts & Culture filed a counter-affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. According to the Management, 200 point roster system was followed as per the vacancy. Similarly, the contention regarding cut-off date is answered by stating that the qualification should be possessed as on the date of notification and not on the date of selection.
SUBMISSIONS:
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the fourth respondent failed to follow 200 point roster system. The Management also erred in prescribing the cut-off date. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are all now qualified for appointment and as such, they should also be considered for selection.
The learned counsel for the fourth respondent justified the impugned notification. According to him, the institution followed 200 point roster system in its letter and spirit. According to the learned counsel, petitioners are not qualified for appointment as on the date on which the notification was issued. Therefore, the fourth respondent has not committed any illegality in issuing the notification.
DISCUSSION:
The petitioners are all Guest Lecturers. Admittedly, the petitioners have not been obtained Ph.D. The petitioners have stated in the reply affidavit that they would be awarded Ph.D., in due course.
The notification is challenged primarily on the following two grounds:
(i) The Institution failed to follow 200 point roster system.
(ii) The Institution erred in prescribing the cut-off date for possessing qualification.
The fourth respondent, in the counter-affidavit, demonstrated that 200 point roster system was followed in its letter and spirit. The first vacancy was earmarked for ''General Turn''. Similarly, there are other 30 vacancies. It was for the first time, the College has followed 200 point roster system. I have compared the roster prepared by the College and 200 point roster system. The roster was correctly followed by the Management. I, therefore, reject the contention that the College failed to follow 200 point roster system.
The second question relates to the cut-off date prescribed for possession of eligible qualification.
The notification in question was issued for public employment. The College should fix a cut-off date to possess the qualification and to submit the application. In case cut-off date is not prescribed, it would result in chaos and confusion. Even those who got the eligible qualification after the issuance of notification, would also claim appointment on the ground that cut-off date was not prescribed and as such, till the selection process is completed, they are also eligible for making application. The fourth respondent fixed the cut-off date, which is applicable to everybody including the petitioners. The petitioners were not in possession of the required qualification as on the date on which the notification was issued. Even according to the petitioners, they got Ph.D., only after the expiry of the last date prescribed for submission of application.
The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another Vs. Chander Shekher and Another, in support of his contention that in case the applicants are qualified as on the date of interview, they are eligible for making application and they should also be considered for appointment.
In Ashok Kumar Sharma''s case, the appellants were eligible for being called for interview on the date of interview. The appellants were permitted to take part in the interview and they had acquired higher marks. The appellants were, ultimately, appointed as Junior Engineers. Later, they were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers by revision of seniority in preference to the respondents, who were also appointed as Junior Engineers and subsequently, promoted, but placed junior to them. When their appointments were challenged at a later point of time on the ground that they have qualified only on the date of interview and not on the date of notification, Supreme Court observed that the selection was not illegal. The Supreme Court has decided the said matter on the peculiar facts of the said case. The notification was not under challenge before the Supreme Court. The appellants were already appointed by permitting them to take part in the interview, notwithstanding the fact that they were qualified only on the date of interview. The said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case to decide the legality and correctness of the impugned notification.
The impugned notification was issued in accordance with law. The cut-off date was fixed with a purpose. The petitioners have not made out a case for setting aside the notification.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.