The prayer in the Writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to select and appoint the petitioner as Director of Physical Education in Tamil Nadu Government Educational Services pursuant to the interview held on 24.04.2010.
2.The respondent service commission had issued a notification on 29.07.2009 inviting applications from eligible candidates for selection to the post of Director of Physical Education in Tamil Nadu Government Educational Services. The petitioner, since having the qualification as prescribed in the notification, had applied to the respondent. Having accepted the application, the respondent had permitted the petitioner, along with other similarly placed persons, who applied to it, to write a written test. Thereafter, candidates who appeared for written test was short listed based on their performances. Subsequently, the candidates who come to the zone of consideration, had been called for physical fitness test and the petitioner also went along with the other persons and participated in the physical fitness test. At that juncture the University Grants Commission had notified a new set of Regulations, namely ?UGC (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (Third Amendment) Regulations 2009? and the same had been published on 11.07.2009 and from that date the notification came into effect. According to the said notification of the UGC, passing of NET/SLET is one of the basic minimum qualification for recruitment and appointment as Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. In the circumstances, number of writ petitions had been filed before this Court by candidates who had participated in the said recruitment process. In one such case, the very notification of the Service Commission had been challenged. Set of writ petitioners/candidates who had not passed SLET/NET as per Third Amendment of the UCG Regulations, which came into effect from 11.07.2009, were seeking directions to permit those petitioners for the purpose of selection and recruitment and during the said relevant point of time this writ petition has also been filed with the aforesaid prayer.
3.Heard both sides.
4.The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Service Commission has, today, produced a positional note from the respondent Service Commission. On a perusal of the same, it is found that, a number of writ petitions challenging the above notifications had been filed before this Court and those writ petitions were grouped together and a common order was passed by a learned Judge of this Court on 18.04.2016, wherein this Court after having considered the relevant merits of the said batch of writ petitions, has ultimately concluded as follows:
?22.As a matter of fact, if the law is applied strictly, there are only two alternatives namely (i) either to dismiss all the writ petitions on the sole ground that the petitioners have come up with the writ petitions after participating in the selection or (ii) to set aside the entire selection on the ground that the Notification for selection was not in accordance with the UGC Regulations. If I adopt the first option, justice will not be done and unqualified candidates may get appointed. If I adopt the second option, the entire exercise undertaken by the Service Commission will go a waste. Therefore, I am of the considered view that allowing at least those 25 candidates who have now become successful in the interview and who were qualified even at the time of Notification, should be appointed.
23.Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to declare only those 25 candidates (i) who were fully qualified as per the amended UGC Regulations even on the date of Notification and (ii) who have qualified for selection after interview, as having been selected for appointment. The list shall be forwarded by the Public Service Commission to the Government and the Government may complete the remaining formalities and issue orders of appointment. There will be no order as to costs.? Therefore, the respondent's positional note states that only the eligible candidates, who had fulfilled the qualifications, as per Third Amendment of the UGC Regulations, have been permitted to be considered for selection. Only 25 candidates, who were eligible, were considered for selection as directed in the said judgment referred to above made in W.P.No.12157 of 2010 in the matter of M.S.Moosa Mubarak Ali v. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and others and etc. batch of writ petitions dated 18.04.2016 and had been selected and appointed. Since the total vacancies were 43 only 25 vacancies had been filed up pursuant to the order of this Court as referred to above, the remaining vacancies had not been filled up.
5.The positional note produced by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would further state as follows:
?10. Out of the above mentioned 22 qualified candidates as per UGC (3rd Amendment) Regulations, 18 can be selected against the remaining 18 vacancies which are to be vacated by the unqualified candidates identified in the tentative select list.
11.The Hon'ble Court was pleased to approve 25 candidates (col-4, of Table ? I who are eligible as per UGC norms from the abstract furnished by the Service commission in consonance with the interim order of this Hon'ble Court dated 28.08.2015 against the 43 vacancies. But there are 22 more qualified and eligible candidates available, as per UGC regulations (from among the 89 candidates who have attended the oral test), who are entitled to be considered for selection against the remaining 18 vacancies as per the Procedure of Selection.
12. For compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 18.04.2016, the service Commission has published the list containing the register number of 25 candidates only, who are provisionally selected for the above said post and now the Service Commission has filed the petition before the Madras High Court, praying to permit the Service Commission to select and recommend further 18 candidates who have the qualification prescribed under the UGC regulations 2009 and from part of the 90 candidates short-listed for Oral Test. The permission petition filed by the Service commission is pending for disposal before the Hon'ble Madras High Court.
13. It is submitted that the permission petition has been filed for the following reasons that if the Service Commission is not permitted to select and recommend for appointment of another 18 candidates in addition to the figure '25' mentioned by this Hon'ble Court in the order dated 18.04.2016, about 18 candidates will loose their chance of being selected and recommended for appointment to the post of Director of Physical Education and the rule of reservation will not also be satisfied if the selection is restricted to 25 candidates alone. In that case 18 vacancies (GT-5, BC-3, MBC-6, SC-2, SC(A)-
2) will remain vacant and consequently affect the order of turn and rotation prescribed for appointment under the rule of reservation and also as the notification was issued 7 years ago, many of the candidates might have become over aged for the next recruitment.
14.With regard to this petitioner/C.Angeline she has acquired post graduate in Physical Education and also M.Phil in Physical Education. In view of the common order dated 18.04.2016, she has not acquired the requisite educational qualification as per amended UGC Regulations 2009 as NET/SLET was stipulated as minimum eligibility criteria for recruitment and appointment of Lectures in Universities/Colleges/Institutions and who are awarded the Ph.D. Degree in compliance of 2009 amended regulation shall be exempt from the requirement of minimum eligibility of pass in NET/SLET.
In view of the above, the petitioner has not acquired educational qualification for the post of Director of Physical Education and therefore it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition as devoid of merits.?
6.In view of the above said circumstances, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would submit that since the petitioner did not have the qualification of NET/SLET and the same has been required pursuant to the UGC (Minimum Qualification Required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (Third Amendment) Regulations 2009, which came into effect from 11.07.2009, the petitioner as well as others, who have been unsuccessfully filed the writ petitions in the said batch of cases would not be entitled to seek any indulgence for consideration of her candidature.
7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the notification of the respondent was issued on 29.07.2009, wherein the qualification has been prescribed. Based on such qualifications number of candidates like the petitioner had applied. Since the petitioner has qualified as sought for by the respondent in the notification, she had been permitted to write the examination. Subsequently, physical fitness test has been conducted. After having completed the procedural formalities adopted by the Service Commission, they cannot turn around and say that those who had completed SLET/NET, which had been introduced 18 days prior to the notification and the respondent Service Commission had omitted to include the said notification referred to above, alone are entitled for selection. The learned counsel for the petitioner also would submit that it is the duty cast upon the respondent to verify that what is the required qualification, but the respondent has omitted to include the qualification prescribed by UGC, which according to the respondent came into force on 11.07.2009. In the present notification issued by the respondent dated 29.07.2009, the fault is absolutely on the part of the respondent for which the candidates like the petitioner cannot by penalised. The petitioner was awaiting for orders from the respondent Service Commission for selection to the post for all these years, cannot be shown the door because of the fault on the part of the respondent Service Commission.
8.This Court has considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
9.As has been rightly submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.12157 of 2010 etc., in the matter of M.S.Moosa Mubarak Ali v. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and others and etc. dated 18.04.2016 (cited supra), wherein the learned Judge after having considered all the issues, which have been raised by a number of writ petitioners, as has been raised in this writ petition, has ultimately concluded in paragraph 23, wherein permission was granted for selection of 25 candidates as admittedly those 25 candidates alone satisfied the required qualification, among the candidates, who had reached the zone of consideration. In the case of filling up of the remaining posts, the respondent Service Commission has approached this Court for permission and the matter is pending before this Court. When that being so, the petitioner, who is similarly placed, admittedly did not have the qualification of SLET/NET at the time of making notification. It is settled principle of law that who ever makes an application for selection and appointment in Government Services should have the required qualification on the date of notification. In this case, on the date of notification i.e., 29.07.2009 the petitioner did not have the qualification of SLET/NET. As before such date, such qualification was required and essential one, in view of the UGC (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2009. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have grievance that she should have been considered for the said recruitment. The similar relief as has been sought for by the petitioner herein, has been denied for a number of persons. In the said circumstances, the very same relief cannot be given to the petitioner as the petitioner is no where superior to those candidates in so far as the qualification prescribed by the UGC. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for and the same is liable to be rejected.
10.Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and therefore, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
To The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai ? 600 002..