The proceedings of the first respondent in Mu.Mu.No.34418/F1/07, dated 10.01.2008, according approval for appointment of fifth respondent as Principal of the fourth respondent college, are under challenge in this Writ Petition.
2. Petitioner joined as a Lecturer in June,1974, in the fourth respondent college and, in 1988, obtained Ph.D.Degree from University of Madras and was elevated as the Head of the Department of Commerce. He also served as Deputy Warden of the college hostel for three years and Warden for one year. He was also appointed as Principal in-charge by the fourth respondent college for some period in the year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.
3. On 31.01.2007 when the vacancy for the post of Principal arose, one N.C.Chandrasekaran, the fifth respondent, who ran eighth to the petitioner, was promoted as Principal of the college, subject to the approval of the first respondent, vide fourth respondent's resolution dated 20.04.2007. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent on 26.04.2007 and since no response was forthcoming, he filed W.P.No.30778 of 2007, whereupon this Court, on 24.09.2007, directed the first respondent to consider the appeal of the petitioner within a period of six weeks. Thereafter, the appeal was dismissed by the first respondent on 10.01.2008, according approval to the appointment of fifth respondent as Principal of the fourth respondent college. Hence, this Writ Petition.
4. Respondents have filed a counter, stating that on 31.01.2007, the then Principal Dr.G.Anbuganapathy had voluntarily retired from the college; since the petitioner was the senior most person working in the college, he was promoted as the In-charge Principal pending appointment to the post of regular Principal, which cannot be a ground to appoint the petitioner as Principal of the college, as the said post is a selection post, for which merit and ability alone are the criteria, seniority being considered only merit and ability are approximately equal, and, based on merit and ability, the fifth respondent was selected for the post by the Selection Committee, which was subsequently approved by the Department, and, therefore, the said selection cannot be interfered with.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted and only the senior most Selection Grade Lecturer/Reader shall be promoted as the Principal in the Government Aided Colleges and that the requirement of Ph.D. and a minimum of 55% marks in post graduation are mandatory for selection as Principal. The learned counsel has relied upon the following authorities :
(i) Dr.S.Arulmani v. Government of Tamil Nadu & 5 others, 2006 Writ L.R.390 :
"40. In view of the finding that G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 24.03.1999, prescribing educational qualification and the constitution of committee, was issued only in accordance with the regulations framed by UGC, the impugned order though issued under
Article 162 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as it reproduces the minimum educational qualifications and the constitution of the selection committee as per the Regulations, it cannot be said that it is not binding on the college..."
(ii) S.Sethuraman v. R.Venkataraman and Others, 2007 (6) Supreme Court Cases 382 :
"17. While exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate authority has indisputably a plenary power. It may not only consider the respective educational qualifications and other activities of the respective candidates for the purpose of arriving at a decision as to which of the two candidates had better merit and ability, but it should exercise its jurisdiction keeping in view the views of the Managing Committee. If two view are possible, ordinarily, the view of the Managing Committee should be allowed to prevail."
(iii) Maharishi Dayanand University v. M.L.R.Saraswati College of Education, 2000 (7) Supreme Court Cases 746 :
"21.It is also clear to us from the proceedings of the Selection Committee dated 1-5-1999 (p.18/n of the paper-book) that only the Chairman, Principal, two nominees of the governing body and one nominee of the Principal were present at the selection on 1-5-1999. Admittedly, no request was even sought from the University to send its representative to be on the Selection Committee. The prescribed pro forma, in fact, required presence of the nominee of the University and also a nominee of the Director of Higher Education and no such nominees were present on 1-5-1999. It is not also the case of the College that any advertisement was published for this interview of 1-5-1999 in two newspapers as required. At any rate, no such material has been filed. Nor were the Committee proceedings and list of candidates sent to the University after the selection was over, as required."
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the fifth respondent has submitted that the selection of the fifth respondent was made by the properly constituted Selection Committee as per rules and G.O., in addition to following merit and ability and hence the said selection does not suffer from any perversity. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has cited the following decisions :
(i) Madan Lal and Others v. State of J & K and Others, 1995 (3) Supreme Court Cases 486 :
"10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a court of appeal and try to reassess the relative merits of the candidates concerned who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee."
(ii) Suneeta Aggarwal v. State of Haryana and Others, 2000 (2) Supreme Court Cases 615 :
"4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Narration of the aforestated facts would show that the appellant had disentitled herself to seek relief in the writ petition filed by her before the High Court. The appellant did not challenge the order of the Vice-Chancellor declining to accord approval to her selection and, on the contrary, she applied afresh for the said post in response to readvertisement of the post without any kind of protest. Not only did she apply for the post, but she also appeared before the Selection Committee constituted consequent upon readvertisement of the post and that too without any kind of protest, and on the same day she filed a writ petition against the order of Vice-Chancellor declining to accord his approval and obtained an ad interim order. In the writ petition, she also did not disclose that she had applied for the post consequent upon the second advertisement. The appellant having appeared before the Selection Committee without any protest and having taken a chance, we are of the view that the appellant is estopped by her conduct from challenging the earlier order of the Vice-Chancellor. The High Court was justified in refusing to accord any discretionary relief in favour of the appellant. The writ petition was rightly dismissed."
(iii) Dhananjay Malik and Others v.State of Uttaranchal and Others, 2008 (4) Supreme Court Cases 171 :
"8. In Madan Lal v. State of J&K 1995 (3) SCC 486, this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted."
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records.
8. Once a post becomes vacant, all persons, who fulfil the eligible criteria, are entitled to be considered for appointment to the said post and none is entitled to claim automatic appointment to the said post on the basis of seniority.
9. In the present case, when the post of Principal fell vacant, by circular dated 14.03.2007, applications were invited from eligible Senior Grade Lecturers and Readers for the said post by promotion, indicating that promotion would be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal. Following that, eleven persons from the college, including the petitioner and the fifth respondent, had applied for the said post. A Committee for selection to the post of the Principal was formed and, on 20.04.2007, the said Committee interviewed all the eleven candidates, who had applied, and selected fifth respondent as the new Principal for the college.
10. After the post of Principal fell vacant, the petitioner merely rendered himself eligible along with the other candidates for appointment and the same does not entitle him to claim automatic appointment to the said post.
11. Section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act,1976, contemplates the functions of the College Committee as well as the responsibility of the educational agency to appoint teachers and other staff. The said College Committee, while selecting the candidates, shall follow the norms relating to the eligibility and qualifications prescribed by University Grants Commission.
12. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted, it is to be stated, that, as per the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations,2000, coupled with G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 24.03.1999, the Selection Committee for the post of Principal in Aided Colleges should consist of the following :
1.Chairperson of the Governing Board as Chairperson.
2.One member of the Governing Board to be nominated by the Chairman
3.Two Vice-Chancellor's nominees, out of whom one should be an expert.
4.Three experts consisting of the Principal of a college, a Professor and an accomplished educationalist not below the rank of a Professor (to be nominated by the Governing Board) out of panel of experts approved by the Vice-Chancellor.
At least, four members, including two experts, should constitute the quorum.
13. In the case on hand, the Selection Committee consisted of four members of the College Committee, including the President of the College Committee as Chairperson of the Governing Board, and three Principals from the Government Arts Colleges of Dharmapuri, Namakkal and Karur, who were experts and whose names were obtained from the University. So, as per the proviso clause, four members, including two experts, constituted the quorum and, as such, the same cannot be said to be not properly constituted.
14. Even assuming, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Selection Committee was not in accordance with the notifications and that there was a deviation, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the validity of the Selection Committee, having participated in the selection process conducted by that Selection Committee.
15. Adverting to the process of selection, the following factors should involve therein :
(a) Assessment of aptitude for teaching and research.
(b) Ability to communicate clearly and effectively.
(c) Ability to analyse and discuss.
(d) Optional : Ability to communicate may be assessed by requiring the candidate to participate in a group discussion or by exposure to a class room situation/lecture, wherever it is possible.
16. In this connection, as could be seen from the records produced by the fourth respondent college, all the above factors were scrupulously followed in the selection, while evaluating the performance of the candidates. Of the seven members of the Committee, six members merited the fifth respondent and only one member merited the petitioner. Therefore, the selection of fifth respondent for the post was almost unanimous. Hence, it cannot also be said that the selection was bad, as contended by the petitioner.
17. The fifth respondent, who possessed M.A. though with 51.4% marks and M.Phil.qualification, had a good track record in both academics and in administration vis-a-vis the petitioner, having held the following posts :
Therefore, the candidature of the fifth respondent fell within the zone of consideration and the Selection Committee, after taking all aspects of the performance, both academically and administratively, had rightly decided to promote the fifth respondent as the Principal of the fourth respondent college.
18. The post of Principal is of pivotal importance in the file of the college. It is upon the Principal and teachers of a college, the tone and temper of an educational institution depends, so also its reputation, maintenance of discipline and efficiency in teaching. From among the eleven persons interviewed by the Selection Committee, the selection of the fifth respondent was unanimous. While selecting the Principal of the college, the educational qualifications and the marks obtained by them in the interview were duly considered by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee, having been satisfied itself with the qualifications, merit and ability, resolved to select the fifth respondent as the new Principal of the fourth respondent college. The said selection was also made based upon G.O.Ms.No.345, dated 03.10.2005, and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act,1976. The petitioner cannot assail such a decision and the same cannot be called upon by him for review by this Court. Excepting the petitioner having a couple of years more experience than the fifth respondent, all other relevant qualifications, as required under the Act, Rules and G.O. were fulfilled by the fifth respondent.
19. The further contention of the petitioner that only the senior most Selection Grade Lecturer/Reader shall be promoted as the Principal in the Government Aided Colleges cannot be accepted, as it is against the principles of fair selection and competition, particularly in view of G.O.Ms.No.345. If such an interpretation is accepted, then every senior most Selection Grade Lecturer/Reader will start claiming automatic appointment to the post of Principal, in which event the entire process of selection becomes nugatory.
20. In a process of free and fair selection, there is every possibility that a junior candidate is selected for the post. In such an event, it cannot be automatically assumed that such selection was bad, illegal or unhealthy. The paramount consideration is the welfare of the students and the college and, therefore, only the most eligible candidate would emerge successful in the selection process.
21. Just because the petitioner was the senior most person working in the college and he was In-charge Principal pending appointment to the post of regular Principal cannot be a ground to appoint the petitioner as Principal of the college, as the said post is a selection post, for which merit and ability alone are the criteria, seniority being considered only merit and ability are approximately equal, and, based on merit and ability, the fifth respondent was selected for the post by the Selection Committee.
22. It is true, as per G.O.Ms.No.345, dated 03.10.2005, the educational qualifications for the post of Principal are : (i) a Master's Degree with at least 55% of marks; (ii) Ph.D., or equivalent qualification and (iii) a minimum total experience of 15 years of teaching/research in Universities/Colleges and other institutions of Higher Education. However, the explanation to the said G.O. is categorical that the Lecturers appointed prior to 01.01.1996 and those who have less than six years of left over service to retire may also be considered for promotion as Principal, notwithstanding them not possessing a Ph.D. qualification. In addition, as per Regulation 3.5.0, Notes (5) of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations,2000, the minimum requirement of 55% marks at the Master level shall not be insisted upon for Principals, Professors, Readers etc., for the existing incumbents, who are already in the University system. It is also to be noted from the letter of the Registrar of Periyar University dated 10.05.2007, addressed to the fourth respondent college that the qualification of the fifth respondent, Principal of the fourth respondent college, had been approved and he was permitted to be the Principal of the college. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the fifth respondent is not eligible for being considered for the post of Principal, since he does not possess the requisite educational qualification and the minimum 55% marks at post graduation level cannot be countenanced, as the same is contrary to the legal position.
23. As held by the Supreme Court in Madan Lal's case, referred to by the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. Further, this Court cannot sit as a court of appeal and try to reassess the relative merits of the candidates concerned who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioner successfully urge before this Court that he was given less marks though his performance was better. It was for the Interview Committee to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified, as that would be the function of the Selection Committee and this Court is certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee. In this case, when the petitioner took a calculated chance and appeared at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview was not palatable to him, he cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.
24. Also, the Sethuraman's case, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is to the effect that while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate authority has indisputably a plenary power. It may not only consider the respective educational qualifications and other activities of the respective candidates for the purpose of arriving at a decision as to which of the two candidates had better merit and ability, but it should exercise its jurisdiction keeping in view the views of the Managing Committee, that is what the first respondent has followed in this case. So, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no use to the petitioner.
25. With respect to the vacant post of Principal in the fourth respondent college and for its appointment, the Chairman of the College has got full powers, as per the powers given by the College Committee and, on that basis, the Chairman of the College, with a view to select the Principal, constituted a seven member Selection Committee, in which four members belonged to the College Committee and three members were from the Government Colleges at Namakkal, Karur and Dharmapuri, whose names were obtained from the University.
26. The Selection Committee, on 20.04.2007, convened its meeting and conducted personal interviews. In the report of the College Secretary, it had been stated that Thiru N.C.Chandrasekaran, fifth respondent herein, was moving with the students and faculty members very freely and hence the affairs of the college were going on smoothly. However, as far as Thiru P.Singaravel, who is the petitioner herein, was concerned, while he was working as Deputy Warden of the Hostel in the years 1988-1989 and 1989-1990, so many irregularities were found in the accounts of the hostel, as could be seen from the report of the Chartered Accountant, resulting in the college sustaining a loss of Rs.84,367.77. Further, for the unnecessary activities and the acts of propagating against the higher officials, the petitioner was warned by the Director of Collegiate Education, vide letter No.7035/E2/06, dated 03.05.2007, stating that he should not indulge in any such wrongful acts. So, the fifth respondent had got special qualifications and efficiencies as well, when compared to the petitioner, and, as such, he was selected for the post, which was subsequently approved by the Department, namely, first respondent vide the order impugned. Hence, the first respondent was perfectly justified in passing such an order.
27. As per the prescribed qualification and the assessment of merit and ability, both the College Committee and also the appellate authority have decided that the fifth respondent is more meritorious and in respect of ability also he is in an advantageous position than the petitioner. The seniority will come into play only when the merit and ability are equal. In the instant case, the College Committee, after looking into all aspects of the matter and doing the selection process by following the procedure contemplated, selected the fifth respondent for the post of Principal. Therefore, seniority alone is not the criterion, as looked into by the original authority as well as the appellate authority, when the merit and ability are not equal. This Court, cannot sit as a court of appeal and try to reassess the relative merits of the candidates, who have been assessed at the oral interview as well as the other comparative merits as per the relevant rules, governing the selection process. In that view of the matter, I do not see any infirmity in the order impugned. Therefore, the Writ Petition deserves no merit and the same has to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.
26-11-2009 Index : Yes Internet : Yes dixit To 1.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Registrar, Periyar University, Salem-11. 3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. V.DHANAPALAN,J. dixit ORDER IN W.P.No.3105 OF 2008 26-11-2009