IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.09.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.A.No.1085 of 2017 and CMP No.15117 of 2017
1. B.Deepan Kumar
2. S.Karthik
3. E.Palani
4. K.Prabu
5. J.Mani
6. P.Ramesh
7. N.Silambarasan
8. C.Parthipan
9. N.K.Vivekanandhan
10. S.Elumalai
11. A.Ravichandran .. Appellants versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director of Collegiate Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. .. Respondents http://www.judis.nic.in Prayer: Writ Appeal filed against the order dated 11.07.2017 passed in W.P.No.15913 of 2017.
For Appellants : Mr.A.Maheshnath For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Special Government Pleader.
JUDGMENT (Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) Appellants numbering 11 have filed W.P.No.15913 of 2017, for a mandamus, directing, the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai, 1st respondent herein to rationalise the method of selection to the post of Assistant Professor in Collegiate Education by conducting selection through written competitive examination in consonance with Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, with a fair and transparent selection procedure, by considering the representation submitted by them dated 29.05.2017, within a time frame.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the apprehension expressed regarding the irregularities, likely to be committed, in selecting the candidates, vide order dated 11.07.2017, writ Court, by observing that the appellants, have not established a semblance of right to maintain a writ petition, dismissed the same.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3. Though, the appellants have relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, reported in 1981 (1) SCC 722, and contended that selection cannot be solely based on an interview and reiterated the averments made before the writ Court, material on record discloses that for selecting candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Collegiate Education Services and for appointment in Government Arts and Science Colleges, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai, has been following the procedure contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.412 Higher Education (F2) Dept., dated 04.12.2009, Govt.Lr.No.20575A/F2/2011, dated 27.06.2012 and G.O.(Ms.) No.32, Higher Education (F2) Dept. dated 08.03.2013 , which reads thus,
4. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that selection is solely based on interview, is apparently not correct for the reason that out of 34 marks, Government have awarded, 15 marks for teaching experience, as stated supra, and for educational qualifications, awarded http://www.judis.nic.indifferent marks, as stated supra.
5. Decision in Ajay Hasia's case is made applicable to the case on hand. Criteria stated supra is to all the candidates who have applied for the post of Assistant Professors in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for appointment in Government Arts and Science Colleges. Appellants/writ petitioners, have no right to insist that selection should be made through competitive examination, in consonance with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Prescription of educational qualifications and method of selection is purely the prerogative of the appointing authority. In the case oh hand, all are treated equally and their inter se merit is decided on the basis of their teaching experience, educational qualifications and interview. Process of selection is not arbitrary.
6. As rightly observed by the writ Court, likelihood of unfairness in the matter of selection, cannot be a ground for a candidate, to suggest a different mode of selection, than the one prescribed by the Teachers Recruitment Board, the authority constituted for recruitment. There is no manifest error in the order, warranting interference. Writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes http://www.judis.nic.inars [S.M.K., J.] [M.D.I, J.] 11.09.2017 S. MANIKUMAR, J.
AND M.DHANDAPANI, J.
ars W.A.No.1085 of 2017 and CMP No.15117 of 2017
11.09.2017
http://www.judis.nic.in