IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 8.4.2009 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN W.A.No.1029 of 2007 Dr.S.Indirani .. Appellant Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Directorate of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-6.
2. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region Madurai-625 020.
3. The Secretary Lakshmi College of Education Gandhigram-624 302.
4. The Registrar Madurai Kamaraj University Palkalainagar Madurai-625 021. .. Respondents PRAYER: Against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.4.2007 made in W.P.No.6599 of 1998.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Thirumurthy For Respondents: Mr.R.Thirugnanam Special Govt. Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 JUDGMENT (Delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.) The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.4.2007 made in W.P.No.6599 of 1998, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
2. In the writ petition, the petitioner/appellant herein challenged the order of the Directorate of Collegiate Education dated 26.2.1998, by which the Director had rejected the representations of the petitioner/appellant herein dated 12.9.1994 and 15.11.1994, by deciding that the services rendered by the appellant in the third respondent/College, which is an aided private college, governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, between the period 1.3.1984 and 26.5.1986, during which period she was working as an Assistant Professor on temporary basis and was not having the required minimum qualification, and therefore, cannot be considered for the purpose of claiming the benefits of the Career Advancement Programme.
3.1. The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Professor, Home Science in the third respondent/College. At the time of appointment, she was having the qualification of M.Sc. and B.Ed. Degree. As per Section 15 of the Act, the fourth respondent/Madurai Kamaraj University is empowered to prescribe the qualification for appointment of teachers. It appears that at the time of her appointment in 1984 in the third respondent/College, she had applied for exemption from the fourth respondent/University, under which the third respondent/College was affiliated. The fourth respondent/ University has granted exemption in respect of the appointment of the appellant, who was not having the minimum required qualification at that time, for the academic years 1983-1984, 1984-1985 and 1985-1986, and it was based on the exemption granted by the fourth respondent/ University, the appellant was paid salary by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education for those years.
3.2. It is seen that, thereafter, she has acquired the required qualification in the year 1986 and based on the said additional qualification acquired by her, the affiliating University approved her appointment in the third respondent/College from 26.5.1986 to hold the post of Assistant Professor in the regular capacity and the same was also approved by the Director of Collegiate Education.
3.3. However, by virtue of the University Grants Commission notification, the appellant was re-designated as Lecturer (Senior Scale) by the second respondent. As per the Career Advancement Programme introduced by the University Grants Commission, accelerated scale of pay was also given. The appellant, claiming that she is entitled to Senior Scale of pay by counting her services during the years 1983-1984, 1984-1985 and 1985-1986, made a representation to the Director of Collegiate Education and the same was rejected.
4. The main contention raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that when once University Grants Commission has prescribed only the Post Graduation with B.Ed. as the relevant qualification for holding the post of Professor, it is not open to the fourth respondent/ University to prescribe more qualification. It was also stated that similarly situated persons as that of the appellant have been given such benefits.
5. The learned Single Judge found that, as far as the granting of exemption is concerned, it is depending on individual cases and therefore, the appellant cannot equate herself with other persons. With regard to the other point raised, that the University cannot prescribe more qualification than what is required by the University Grants Commission, the learned Single Judge held that Section 15 of the Act enables the University to prescribe qualification and therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant on this count.
6. It is seen that the appellant's appointment was approved with effect from 26.5.1986 in the regular capacity and she is getting salary. The only issue that is raised by the appellant is about the senior scale of pay, on the basis of the Career Advancement Programme.
7. In our considered opinion, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the fourth respondent/University is empowered to prescribe the required qualification under Section 15 of the Act. In such view of the matter, the appellant is not entitled to any relief as claimed for. The order of the learned Single Judge warrants no interference and the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
(P.J.M.J.) (A.J.J.) 8.4.2009 Internet : Yes sasi To:
1. The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Directorate of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-6.
2. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region Madurai-625 020.
3. The Registrar Madurai Kamaraj University Palkalainagar Madurai-625 021.
P.JYOTHIMANI,J.
AND ARUNA JAGADEESAN,J.
[sasi] W.A.No.1029 of 2007 8.4.2009