S. Vinodh vs The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The first respondent viz., Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, originally issued Advertisement No. R3/01 (Regular Vacancies)/2013, dated 09.09.2013, calling for applications to fill up vacancies for various posts in the University.

A writ petition came to be filed by an Association viz., Adhi Dravidar Marumalarchi Association in W.P. No. 26769 of 2013, challenging the said notification on the ground that the notification was not in consonance with the Department Wise Roster system for the purpose of selection of candidates for the posts. When the said writ petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel who appeared for the University submitted that the University, while accepting the claim made by the petitioner Association had decided to adhere to the department-wise roster system and select the candidates for the post of Assistant Professors. The learned counsel requested the Court to record the said submission and to close the writ petition. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for impleaded respondents 2 to 28, who were candidates for the said posts, submitted that it would be appropriate to follow the discipline-wise roster system instead of department-wise roster system.

Considering the said request and having considered all the other aspects, this Court issued a direction in the said writ petition, by order dated 12.12.2013 to the following effect:-

The first respondent is directed to issue fresh notification, calling for the applications for filling up of posts of Assistant Professor adhering to the selection by discipline-wise roaster (sic) system, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent is at liberty to process the application which were received pursuant to the impugned notification.

In pursuance of the said direction issued, now the first respondent University has issued Advertisement No. R3/01 (Regular Vacancies) 2013 (Revised), dated 18.12.2013. As per this Notification, Home Science and Food Science has been treated as one single discipline and Horticulture as another discipline. The petitioners are aggrieved over the same. Therefore, they are before this Court with this writ petition.

It is the contention of the petitioners that so far as Home Science and Food Science are concerned, it is not a discipline and it is only subjects. There are five disciplines under this subject. Similarly, under Horticulture, there are four disciplines. Therefore, according to the petitioners, roster should have been followed in respect of each discipline as mentioned above. Since the same was not done, the petitioners are before this Court with this writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. I have also perused the records carefully.

In the counter filed by the first respondent, inter alia, it is stated that Horticulture is one discipline and Home Science and Food Science is yet another discipline. In the Notification dated 18.12.2013, they have adhered to discipline wise roster system in accordance with the order of this Court made in W.P. No. 26769 of 2013 dated 12.12.2013. Therefore, according to the first respondent, the notification is not defective and needs no interference at the hands of this Court.

I have considered the above submissions.

Admittedly, the term discipline has not been defined anywhere in the statute. Therefore, it is appropriate only for the University to say as to what a discipline is. The University in the counter affidavit has stated that Horticulture is one discipline and Home Science and Food Science is yet another discipline. As claimed by the petitioners, five disciplines are not there under the head Horticulture, likewise, four disciplines are not there under the head Home Science and Food Science. The learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to substantiate his contention that there are five disciplines under the head Horticulture and four disciplines under the head Home Science and Food Science. In all the records produced before me, it is shown that "Horticulture" is one discipline and "Home Science and Food Science" is another discipline. Though, it may be true that there are various subjects, which are dealt with under Horticulture discipline, each such subject cannot be treated as a separate discipline. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted.

In view of the same, I do not find any merit at all in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.