The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Pa.Mu.No.4793/A4/2008 dated 17.07.2008, in approving the appointment of the 5th respondent as Lecturer in Zoology, and quash the same and consequentially directing the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct fresh selection for the post of lecturer in Zoology in the 4th respondent college.
2.The petitioner has challenged the appointment order of the 5th respondent Mr.Pushparaj, Lecturer in Zoology in the 4th respondent college. The case of the petitioner is that he possessed M.Sc. degree in Zoology and M.Phil degree. The petitioner joined as Lecturer in Zoology in the 4th respondent?s college in the temporary vacancy on 05.07.2005 and he worked there till 09.01.2008. In the meantime, the 4th respondent college called for interview for the selection to the post of Lecturer in the vacancies inclusive of the post of Lecturer in Zoology vide paper publication dated 10.10.2007. The petitioner had applied for the post of lecturer in Zoology and he was called for interview to the said post and he also attended the interview before the selection committee on 10.01.2008.
3.It is the further case of the petitioner is that though he did well in the interview, he was not selected for the said post and the 5th respondent was selected to the post of Lecturer in Zoology. The petitioner has contended that the selection committee constituted by the 4th respondent?s college Management is vitiated and unsustainable in law and the selection has overlooked by experience as lecturer in the same college. The 4th respondent?s college has neither notified the vacancies in the Employment Exchange as per law or the selection committee was constituted in accordance with the UGC norms and regulations.
4.The further case of the petitioner is that as per UGC norms, for the selection to the post of Lecturer, the selection committee shall consist of 7 members which include 2 nominees of the Vice-Chancellor of the Affiliating University. Out of 7 members, one should be a subject expert and 2 subjects experts not connected with the college to be nominated by the Chairman of the Governing Body out of a panel of members approved by the Vice-Chancellor. The selection committee was not constituted in consonance with the said UGC norms. The vey purpose of the constitution by selection committee as per UGC norms is to enable the appointing authority to select the best of eligible candidates for appointment. The petitioner has further contended that subsequent to the selection of 5th respondent on 14.01.2008, the 3rd respondent approved the appointment of the 5th respondent by proceedings dated 17.07.2008. As stated above, the petitioner has challenged the approval of the selection of the 5th respondent by the 3rd respondent and seeking direction before this Hon?ble Court for a fresh interview has to be conducted by properly notifying the vacancies in the Employment Exchange as per the Employment Exchange Compulsory Notification Acts and Rules and properly constituting a selection committee in accordance with the University Regulations 2000.
5.The 1st respondent have filed a detailed counter affidavit and referred to the various provisions of the University Grant Commission and the selection process as per UGC norms. The details of the recruitment and qualification to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professors in the Universities and Colleges have been stated in their counter affidavit and they have also elaborately stated about the requirement to pass NET/SLET EXAMS as the minimum eligibility condition for appointment to the post of Lectures in Universities /Colleges /Institutions. The relevant paragraphs relating to the selection process mentioned UGC Act stated in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent are extracted hereunder:
?That selection 2(f) of the Universities Grants commission Act defines the University, which provides that University means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a Sate Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance with the Regulations made in this behalf under this Act.?
6.That selection 3 deals with the notification of deemed to be University providing that ?The Central Government may, on advice of the commission declare by notification in the Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a University shall be deemed to be University for the purposes of this Act, and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University? within the meaning of clause (f) of
Section 2. The Qualifications and Eligibility:
All candidates who have passed UGC /CSIR J.R.F. Examination. All candidates who have already been awarded Ph.D. degree. All candidates who have already been awarded M.Phil. degree up to 31st march,1991 All candidates who will submit their Ph.D. thesis up to 31st December, 1993.
7.The case of the 4th respondent is that the petitioner worked in a Leave Vacancy, as Zoology Lecture in the 4th respondent?s college for the period from 05.07.2005 to 09.01.2008. The petitioner has appeared for the interview held on 10.01.2008 for the post of Lectures in Zoology before the selection committee. The petitioner has passed M.Phil in coastal Agriculture and not in Zoology subject and her claim that she is a M.Phil degree holder in Zoology is false, whereas the 5th respondent is a M.Phil degree holder in Zoology. The selection committee selected the 5th respondent as he is a better qualified candidate than the petitioner and he scored 57.0 marks, whereas the petitioner has secured 42.2 marks only. The petitioner was furnished with all information pursuant to her Telegraphic complaint dated 30.07.2008 sent to the 3rd respondent and again through the replay dated 22.09.2008 sent to her by the 4th respondent?s college under RTI Act.
8.By suppressing the above said facts, the petitioner has made feral allegation as if the selection committee was not constituted as per the norms of the UGC, the college did not notify the vacancies to the concerned Employment Exchange. The 4th respondent collage has received the eligible candidates list from the Executive Employment Office, Chennai by their office letter dated X2/G1163/2007 dated 12.11.07 and the interview call letters were sent to all the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange. The petitioner has also participated at interview and now she has raised untenable contention as she was not selected.
9.The 4th respondent further contended that the selection committee was constituted as per UGC norms and regulation and the details of seven members selection committee is given below:
i.Chair person of the college Governing Body 1. Dr.B.Sivanthi Adityan ii.Principal of the college 2. Dr.E.John Jothi Prakash iii.HOD of Zoology 3. Mr.D.Rajan iv.Two nominees of the Vice- 4. Dr.N.Gnanadhas Chancellor of whom one (V.C. Nominee) should be a subject expert
5. Dr.K.Sampath (V.C. Nominee cum subject expert) v. Two subject experts not 6. Dr.Jeyakumari connected with the college to ( subject expert ) be nominated by the Chair-
10.Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that no selection committee was constituted as per U.G.C norms and regulation is utter false. The 3rd respondent has rightly approved the selection of the 5th respondent on 14.01.2008 through his proceeding dated 17.07.2008. The 5th respondent is receiving the salary from the date of his appointment. The petitioner has no right to question the appointment of the 5th respondent and to seek for fresh selection to the post Lecturer in Zoology.
11.The 5th respondent has contended that he Graduated M.Sc., Zoology from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University and also completed Ph.D in Zoology from the same university. The 5th respondent came to know the vacancy to the post of Lecturer in Zoology in the 4th respondent college through a paper publication dated 10.10.2007 and he applied for the said vacancy post in Zoology. The 5th respondent was called for interview by the 4th respondent for selection to the post of Lecturer in Zoology and he appeared before the selection committee on 10.01.2008. Since the 5th respondent did well in interview and he was selected and appointed as a Lecturer in Zoology in the 4th respondent college. The post of the 5th respondent as Lecturer in Zoology in the 4th respondent college was duly approved by the 3rd respondent and the 5th respondent is discharging his duties without any remarks. The petitioner is a M.Phil degree holder in Agriculture Science and not Zoology.
12.The further case of the 5th respondent is that the petitioner failed to notice that since the vacancy is for the post of Lecturer in Zoology, Ph.D in Zoology is prepared more than M.Phil in Agriculture Science. The petitioner has suppressed the fact that she is scored only 42.2 marks, whereas, the 5th respondent has scored 57.0 marks in the interview. The entire selection process was made in completion of the U.G.C norms. Further, the petitioner having participated in the interview and failed in the selection can?t challenge the process of interview after subjecting her all the terms and conditions.
13.I heard Mr.T.Arul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Mr.C.Dhanaseelan, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel for the 5th respondent and given careful consideration to the arguments and also perused the entire records. The entire case rest upon by the petitioner is that the selection to the post of Lecturer in Zoology, the 4th respondent?s colleges has not obtained the list of candidates from the Employment Exchange and the selection to the post of Lecture in Zoology has not been conducted as per the U.G.C. norms and regulation. The further attack made by the petitioner is that the selection committee was not constituted in consonance with the UGC norms. In order to answer the same the 4th respondent college has filed a detail Typed Set of papers, apart from filling the counter affidavit. I have gone through the Typed Set of papers filed by the 4th respondent college wherein in page 1, the communication by the Assistant Director of Professional Employment Office, Chennai addressed to Secretary of 4th respondent college on 12.11.2007 is found. In the said communication, the particulars of suitable candidates list are furnished. Therefore the contention of the petitioner is that no Employment Exchange list was obtained by the 4th respondent college is baseless and the said contention of petitioner is totally false one. This court has considered the other submission of the petitioner that the selection committee was not constituted as per U.G.C. norms and regulation and two nominees of Vice-Chairman was not appointed. The said contention of petitioner is also without any basis. In fact, in page Nos: 2 & 3 of the Typed set of papers filed by the 4th respondent college disclosed that by the proceedings of the Vice-Chancellor, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University dated 13.12.2007 the Vice-Chancellor has nominated two person as her nominee and apart from that two subject experts, other than the 4th respondent college also nominated. The list of Committee Members as follows:
?i.Chair person of the college Governing Body 1. Dr.B.Sivanthi Adityan ii.Principal of the college 2. Dr.E.John Jothi Prakash iii.HOD of Zoology 3. Mr.D.Rajan iv.Two nominees of the Vice- 4. Dr.N.Gnanadhas Chancellor of whom one (V.C. Nominee) should be a subject expert
5. Dr.K.Sampath (V.C. Nominee cum subject expert) v. Two subject experts not 6. Dr.Jeyakumari connected with the college to ( subject expert ) be nominated by the Chair-
person of the Governing body 7. Dr.J.Edwin out of a panel of 7 names ( subject expert ) approved by the Vice- Chancellor --------------------- Total 7 members ---------------------?
Therefore, the contention of petitioner that the selection committee was not constituted as per the U.G.C. norms and regulation is also not correct.
14.That apart, the petitioner has suppressed the marks which she scored in the interview. The 5th respondent has scored 57.0 marks and the petitioner has scored only 42.2 marks. When compared the educational qualification of the petitioner, she possessed M.Phil., in the Agriculture Science and not Zoology, whereas 5th respondent has possessed M.Phil degree in Zoology and he is a degree holder in Doctorate. The above said facts have given waitage to the 5th respondent and he was selected to the post of Lecturer in Zoology in the 4th respondent college and his post was also duly proved by the 3rd respondent. From the above, this court hold that the entire selection process to the post of Lecturer in Zoology in the 4th respondent college is in accordance with law and as per the U G C norms and regulation and the selection and appointment of the 5th respondent well consider appointment. Therefore, the approval given to the appointment of the 5th respondent to the post of Lecturer in Zoology in the 4th respondent college by the 3rd respondent is not called for any interference by this Hon?ble Court.
15.The petitioner herein has not filed any reply to the counter affidavit of the respondents 1, 4 and 5. Therefore, this court could draw inference against the petitioner by holding that she has accepted the version of the respondents. The petitioner has deliberately stated her educational qualification as M.Phil degree in Zoology, but she possessed M.Phil degree in Aqua Science. Therefore the petitioner has made false averments before this Hon?ble Court. The petitioner herein is fully aware about the selection process which was made duly in accordance with the U.G.C norms and regulation. Further, the petitioner is fully aware that she has secured the lesser marks than the 5th respondent, has unnecessarily filed this writ petition whereby and where under caused mental agony and great hardship to the respondents 4 and 5 by filing this vexatious writ petition and to spent legal expenses to depend their cases. Apart from that by filling this vexatious writ petition and ravage the courteous time of this Hon?ble court, the petitioner has necessary to be awarded with cost to be paid to the respondent 4 and 5. The petitioner has not approached this Hon?ble Court with clean hands. This would be a lesson to the vexatious litigant those who are all approaching this Hon?ble court with unclean hands and making unreasonable claim. For the forgoing reason, I am of the view that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is a fit case to award cost to the petitioner.
16.In the result:
(a) this writ petition is dismissed, by confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.Pa.Mu.No.4793/A4/2008 dated 17.07.2008 in confirming the approval of the appointment of the 5th respondent in the 4th respondent College as Lecturer (Zoology);
(b) the petitioner is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost each to the respondents 4 and 5 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
To
1.The University Grants Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.
2.The Regional Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli.
3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli-7..