The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent bearing letter No.47655/C2/2009 dated 03.02.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as Head of Department with effect from 01.10.2006 and promote the petitioner as Principal of the third respondent Polytechnic College, with effect from 01.10.2009.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he joined at the 3rd respondent Polytechnic College as Instructor on 01.10.1982 in Civil Engineering Department. His appointment also was approved by the Director of Technical Education. Thereafter, the petitioner had completed Bachelor of Engineering Degree in Civil and also completed a Master of Engineering Degree in the same subject. Thereafter, he acquired Ph.D., qualification in the year 2004. The petitioner had been working in the third respondent College for the past 27 years.
3.The further case of the petitioner is that as per the recommendation of the Staff Selection Committee dated 15.05.1987, he was approved as Associate Lecturer by the order of the Director of Technical Education, dated 09.06.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner was upgraded to the post of Senior Lecturer by the order of the Director of Technical Education from 21.09.1997. In respect of the further promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer, though the said post was vacant for long years, the petitioner was not considered and only in the year 1998, he had been designated as Senior Lecturer (Regular). Since the petitioner is having more than five years experience as Senior Lecturer, he would be eligible for consideration to the post of Head of the Department in the year 2003 itself. Though there was a vacancy for the said post ie., Head of the Department (HOD) from 01.10.2006 and the petitioner also was fully qualified to hold the post of HOD, he had been given the said post of HOD only from 27.08.2008. Since the petitioner had been working as HOD from the year 2008, he would be eligible to be considered for the post of Principal of the third respondent College, which become vacant for a long time.
4. Though an interview was conducted by the Staff Selection Committee of the third respondent College during the year 2015, where the petitioner also was permitted to participate, no one was selected including the petitioner for the post of Principal. As per the proceedings dated 04.09.2015, the petitioner's candidature was rejected on the ground that he was not eligible and also found not suitable on the ground that he had only worked as Lecturer (Selection Grade), previously known as upgraded HOD and was not eligible and was not found suitable. In the meanwhile, in anticipation of this and in fact, during the year 2010, since the petitioner's candidature was not even considered for the post of HOD, on regular basis, he approached this Court with the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the writ petition to fill up the post of Principal of the third respondent College, Notification was issued, applications were invited from eligible candidates including the internal candidates, like the petitioner. The petitioner had also applied. Pursuant to which, interview was conducted, the petitioner participated in the said interview conducted by the Staff Selection Committee. At the end, the Staff Selection Committee had rejected the candidature of the petitioner not for any other reason, but only on the reason that the petitioner, since had been working only as an upgraded HOD, he was not eligible to be considered for the post of Principal, as he was found not suitable, accordingly, his candidature was rejected.
7. In this regard, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that even according to the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, the petitioner had been given regular HOD post, from 27.08.2008 and subsequently, the same was revised with effect from the date of 21.09.2005. As per the eligibility criteria, as has been fixed, those who had worked as regular HOD for five years can suitably be considered for the post of Principal at Government as well as Aided Polytechnics, like, the third respondent. If the person is qualified with Ph.D., degree, the five years experience required is minimised to three years. In other words, those Ph.D., holders, having experience of three years as HOD, can be considered for the post of Principal of Polytechnic College.
8. Therefore, in this regard, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner has been functioning as HOD from 2005 onwards, he has completed both 5 years criteria as well as three years criteria, since he has obtained Ph.D., degree. Therefore, he is entitled to be considered for the appointment to the post of Principal of the third respondent College. Only on that basis, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the selection process and he was called for interview and in fact, he was interviewed by the Staff Selection Committee during the year 2015. However, the resultant position was that his candidature was rejected not that he has not performed well during the interview or failed, but because of his alleged ineligibility, according to the third respondent Selection Committee, ie, the petitioner had not been qualified, because he was holding the post of upgraded HOD only. This reason, according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, is totally against the fact and also completely unjustifiable and therefore, even if the petitioner is permitted to take part in the selection process by way of interview or otherwise, to be made by the Staff Selection Committee, in future, the very same reason would be adduced and if such a reason is given, once again, the petitioner prospects to compete with others to get appointment to the post of Principal of the third respondent College would get ruined. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that suitable orders may be passed by this Court in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the third respondent has submitted that the post of Principal is not a promotional post, whereby automatically promotion can be given to the HOD working in the Institution. In fact, the post of Principal is a selection post based on the merit and ability, that too, on the basis of the selection to be made by conducting interview or otherwise by the Staff Selection Committee.
10. The learned counsel for the third respondent would also state that the selection Committee consists of the members from AICTE, Management Nominee, Director of Technical Education, Chairman of the College, representative representing the interest of SC/ST and others. Once, the Staff Selection Committee is taking the task of selecting the candidate for the post of Principal, the Management of the third respondent College cannot have any role to choose either the petitioner or others. It is for the selection committee alone to take a decision, based on the performance to be made by each of the candidate, who participated in the selection process by way of oral test/interview. In this regard, the learned counsel for the third respondent would also invite the attention of this Court on the notification issued by way of paper advertisement dated 08.10.2006 by the third respondent College, whereby, some of the teaching posts, including the post of Principal of the third respondent College were sought to be filled up. Through the notification dated 08.10.2006, the third respondent has invited applications from eligible candidates to fill up those posts including the post of Principal.
11. In this regard, the learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that eligible candidates had also applied pursuant to the said notification dated 08.10.2006 to fill up the post of Principal and only to ascertain the dates of the members of the Staff Selection Committee, it takes some time and once the members of the Staff Selection Committee, which concur with the date of interview, immediately, the interview process would begin and communication would be sent to each of the candidates, who applied for the posts. Since the petitioner has also applied for the said post of Principal, pursuant to the notification dated 08.10.2006, he would also be called for interview and based on the performance compared with the performances of the other candidates, the final selection would be made by the selection committee, accordingly, appointment would be made.
12. The learned Additional Government Pleader also would make his submissions that once the petitioner become eligible to be considered for the post of Principal, certainly, his candidature could be taken into account by the Staff Selection Committee, where the nominee of the Department of Technical Education also would be a member and based on the inter-se merit, final selection would be made by the selection committee.
13. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and the learned counsel for the third respondent and also perused the materials placed before this Court.
14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the documents, filed before this Court, this Court finds that the only controversy, now, revolving for consideration before this Court, as projected by the petitioner is that, whether the petitioner's candidature would be considered for appointment to the post of Principal at the third respondent College without rejecting the same on the ground that the petitioner had not been full-fledged HOD on regular basis for five years or three years, as the case may be, as required under the relevant regulations/Government order as an eligibility criteria for the purpose of appointment to the post of Principal of the Polytechnic College or Aided Polytechnic College, as in the case of the third respondent. In this regard, the averments made by the third respondent in their counter can be usefully referred to. The third respondent has made the following averments at Paragraph No.9, which reads thus:
?9.I sumit that the contentions raised in paragraph 3 of the affidavit are devoid of merits. Petitioner had been provided with all the benefits at the appropriate time and even where it had been given at a later stage, it had been given retrospective effect. The petitioner joined as an instructor in the civil engineering department in our college on 01.10.1982. The appointment of the petitioner to the said post was approved by the director with effect from 01.10.1985 vide proceedings dated 27.05.1987. Petitioner was later appointed as an associate lecturer from 01.07.1987. The date of approval as instructor was revised to 10.06.1984 instead of 01.10.1985 by the proceedings of the director of technical education dated 21.04.1988. The petitioner was upgraded to the post of senior lecturer from 21.09.1997 under the proceedings dated 20.03.1998. The petitioner was appointed as senior lecturer (regular) from 27.08.1998 and it was approved by the director of technical education by proceedings dated 27.08.1998. The petitioner was later appointed to the post of Head of the department from 27.08.2008 and the same was revised to the date of 21.09.2005 by the proceedings of the director dated 23.07.2012 giving due weightage to his PhD degree course. Therefore, the averments to the contra stated in paragraph 3 are without any merit and in fact the petitioner had received and enjoyed the consequential monetary benefits also.?
15. From the said averments made by the third respondent, it become quite clear that the petitioner had been given regular promotion to the post of HOD atleast from 21.09.2005 and from the said date onwards, the petitioner had been continuously functioning as a HOD at the third respondent College. The eligibility criteria, as has been admitted by both sides for consideration to the post of Principal, is that the HOD having five years experience would be considered. In case, the HOD has acquired the qualification of Doctorate, ie., Ph.D., degree, mere three years experience is enough to be considered for the post of Principal.
16. Here, in this case, in both way, the petitioner is well qualified to be considered for the post of Principal, since he has been working as HOD on regular basis from 21.09.2005 and also he has acquired Ph.D., degree.
17. For the said reasons alone, the petitioner had already been permitted to participate in the selection process during the year 2015. However, even though the Staff Selection Committee has not selected any of the candidates including the petitioner participated in the said selection process, the said Committee has given specific reasons, insofar as the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is concerned, in the following lines:
?Dr.M.Stephen Sahaya Prasad is an internal candidate ?under suspension? he has worked only as Lecturer (Selection grade) previously known as upgraded HOD, so he is not eligible and also found not suitable?
18. Since the petitioner had eligibility to be considered for the post of Principal, as he has completed the required years of service as HOD and is also having the Ph.D., qualification, the said reason, adduced by the Staff Selection committee, pursuant to the interview conducted in the year 2015, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, is not correct. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a strong basis for the apprehension on the part of the petitioner, as projected by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that once again the candidature of the petitioner would be rejected on the very same ground that the petitioner had been working in the upgraded post of HOD, since 2005.
19. As has been given in detail by way of admission through the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, since the petitioner has been given upgradation or appointment to the post of HOD from 27.08.2008 and subsequently the same was revised with effect from the date of 21.09.2005, certainly, he has completed his required number of years of service to make him eligible for consideration to the post of Principal. Therefore, if at all the petitioner is ready and willing to participate in the selection process going to be undertaken by the third respondent or its Staff Selection Committee, pursuant to the publication issued by the third respondent dated 08.10.2006, the petitioner's candidature shall not be rejected on the ground that the petitioner had been working as upgraded HOD from 2005. However, it is open to the Staff Selection Committee to testify the inter-se merit of each of the candidate including the petitioner and based on their performances, final results can be published and selection can be made.
20. In the result, the following orders are passed in this writ petition:
(i) The petitioner shall be permitted to participate in the selection process to the post of Principal at the third respondent College, pursuant to the notification issued by the third respondent dated 08.10.2006 published in the English as well as Vernacular Daily Newspapers ;
(ii) On participation, the petitioner's performance can be testified by the Staff Selection Committee and based on the inter-se merits and performances to be made by each of the candidate, including the petitioner, final selection can be made by the Selection Committee ;
(iii) The Selection Committee shall not reject the candidature of the petitioner merely on the ground that the petitioner had been working as HOD at the third respondent College from 2005 by way of upgraded HOD ;
(iv) Once the process of selection is completed based on the performances to be made by the candidates including the petitioner, the final selection list results shall be announced and to be intimated to the selected candidate concerned ;
(v) Since the post of Principal is kept vacant at the third respondent Polytechnic for a long time, the needful to complete the exercise pursuant to the notification dated 08.10.2006 shall be undertaken as early as possible, at any rate, within an outer limit of three months period, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
21. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions in M.P.Nos.1 of 2010 and 1 of 2015 are closed.
To
1.The Secretary Higher Education Department St. George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner/ Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai..