AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—The petitioner has stated that she had joined in service, as a Technical Assistant, on 12.5.1986. As such, she has been
working in the Institute of Ocean management, in Anna University, Chennai, for the past 23 years. She had also obtained a Ph.D., degree from
Anna University, Chennai, in the year, 1998. While so, the second respondent had published an advertisement in the news papers, on 12.2.2009,
calling for applications for six posts of Lecturers, in civil engineering. The petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer, in the Institute of Ocean
management, to be selected from the open pool. She has been called for a written examination, conducted on 4.10.2009. Thereafter, she was
asked to attend for the presentation, on 5.10.2009. The final interview had been held, on 6.10.2009. Thereafter, the second respondent had
selected five candidates, for the posts of lecturers, in civil engineering. However, the second respondent had omitted to select the sixth candidate
for the post of lecturer, which was meant for the Institute of Ocean Management.
The petitioner has further stated that she is the senior most candidate in the University, with all the necessary educational qualifications. Though
the petitioner is fully qualified, for being appointed as a lecturer in the Institute for Ocean management, she had not been selected by the second
respondent. Such non-selection is arbitrary and illegal.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the non-selection of the petitioner, by the second respondent, is a mockery
of the entire selection process. The second respondent had failed to select the petitioner, as a lecturer, for the Institute of Ocean Management,
Anna University, even though she had possessed all the necessary qualifications. The petitioner has also the experience of 23 years of service in the
said institute. When the second respondent had selected the candidates for the five posts of lecturers, there is no reason as to why the petitioner
had not been selected for the sixth post of lecturer for the Institute of Ocean Management. Such non-selection is contrary to the legitimate
expectation of the petitioner and it is an infringement of her fundamental right to employment.
At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent had placed before this Court the
minutes of the meeting of the selection committee, held on 6.10.2009. From the minutes of the said meeting, it is seen that the committee had
resolved to recommend six of the candidates for being appointed as lecturers, to the syndicate, as per the merit and the communal reservation, that
was being followed for such selection. The particulars of the selected candidates are furnished as shown below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roster Sl. No. Name of the Community Starting pay
candidate recommended
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GT (1) 40 V. Ramji OC As per norms
selected
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait listed 38 G. Thiyagarajan MBC As per norms
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC(1) 55 R. Kanmani SC As per norms
Selected Shanmuga Priya
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait listed -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MBC (1) 19 Lenin Kalyana MBC As per norms
Selected Sundaram
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait listed 17 M. Thanmanaselvi MBC As per norms
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BC (1) 69 Soorya Vennila BC As per norms
Selected
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait listed - --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GT(W)(1) 26 S. Rahima Shabeen BC(M) As per norms
Selected
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait listed 4 Shirley Benjamin BC As per norms
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC(W)(1) No one found
selected suitable
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait listed .. --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the above particulars furnished by the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent, it is seen that, for the sixth post of lecturer,
no candidate was found to be suitable in the category of ''Scheduled Castes Woman'', as it was meant for a woman belonging to the scheduled
castes.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer, as per the advertisement issued by the second respondent, dated
12.2.2009, from the open pool.
In such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to claim that she should have been considered for being appointed as a lecturer for the
Institute of Ocean Management in Anna University, Chennai, as she was not belonging to the ''Scheduled Castes woman category. Even if the
petitioner was fully qualified for being selected as a lecturer, she could not be accommodated by the second respondent in the sixth post, which
was meant for scheduled castes woman, as per the communal reservation. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to show that she has
the right to be appointed, as claimed by her. As such, the principles of legitimate expectation cannot be applied to the present case. Having
participated in the process of selection, it would not be open to the petitioner to find fault with the same, after she had learnt that she was not
selected as a lecturer for the Institute of Ocean Management, in Anna University, Chennai.
In such circumstances, as the writ petition filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2009 is closed.