AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—This Is a Public Interest Litigation. The Petitioner seeks for the following prayer:
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 146 of the First Respondent dated
01.06.2007 and the consequential Guidelines dated 16.6.2007 issued by the Second Respondent, quash the S. Nos. 7 to 10 of Para 3(c) of the
impugned G.O. Ms. No. 146, dated 01.06.2007 of the First Respondent and S. Nos. 7 to 10 of Para 2 in Annexure-1 of the consequential
Guidelines dated 16.6.2007 of the Second Respondent and consequently direct Respondents 1 and 2 to award weightage of marks that would
place the PG NET/SLET pass candidates over and above the mere M.Phil/Ph.D candidates, award costs.
When this Writ Petition was moved before us, in view of the urgency involved, we ordered Notice of Motion to the First Respondent-State as
against whom, and with reference to whose Government Order, the challenge has been made, returnable by 03.09.2007. The learned Special
Government Pleader (Education) after taking Notice appeared before us on 03.09.2007 and took time to get instructions.
When the matter was called today (06.09.2007), the learned Special Government Pleader (Education) has made a statement across the bar and
gave a categoric undertaking on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 that the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 146 dated 01.06.2007 will not be given effect to
and that the selection for the post of Lecturers, as notified, would be made strictly in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 106 dated 14.05.2007.
In the light of the above undertaking given by the learned Special Government Pleader (Education) on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2, the
prayer of the Petitioner insofar as it relates to the challenge made as against G.O. Ms. No. 146 dated 01.06.2007, no longer survives for
consideration and in such view of the matter, we set aside G.O. Ms. No. 146 dated 01.06.2007.
Insofar as the second part of the prayer, viz., for a direction to Respondents 1 and 2 to award weightage of marks to the candidates, who hold
Post Graduate with NET/SLET in order to enable them to match the score, over and above the candidates having a mere M.Phil/Ph.D. is
concerned, we are not inclined to consider the said prayer inasmuch as that would virtually amount to reviewing of our earlier Judgment dated
24.03.2007 passed in W.P. Nos. 37000 of 2006 and batch reported in K. Sathyamurthi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and University Grants
Commission, .
Since, the issue as regards the entitlement of the candidate having different qualifications and the prescription of weightage marks to be awarded
was examined threadbare in the said batch of Writ Petitions and decisions having been rendered, we do not find any scope to entertain the second
part of prayer now made in this present Writ Petition. The second part of the prayer, therefore, stands rejected.
The learned Special Government Pleader (Education) pointed out to us that even in the present G.O. Ms. No. 106 dated 14.05.2007, the
various marks awarded provided for under different headings, when strictly applied, would not enable any candidate to score the maximum of 50
marks, as provided therein. According to the learned Special Government Pleader (Education), the following weightage marks are awarded, while
assessing the merit of a candidate viz., For Teaching Experience = 15 marks, Research Contribution/Books/Article Published = 5 marks, Interview
= 10 marks (15+5+10), totalling 30 marks and if such candidate''s qualification is either Ph.D. or M.Phil with NET/SLET or P.G. Decree with
NET/SLET, the said candidate can only score either 39 or 36 or 35 and therefore, the prescription of total (sic) of 50 marks may not correct (sic).
The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader appears to be correct. However, on that score, we are not inclined to pass any orders
as regards the correctness of G.O. Ms. No. 106 dated 14.5.2007. Irrespective of the said incorrect position, in the event of the selection being
made by applying the relevant marks (maximum marks being 39) to the respective candidates possessing different qualifications as per G.O. Ms.
Nos. 106 dt. 14-5-2007 it would be in order for Respondents 1 and 2 to go ahead with the selection and complete the same. This Writ Petition
stands partly allowed. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007 are dosed. No costs.