The petitioner was working as Reader and Head of the Department of Philosophy in National College, Tiruchirappalli. He applied for the post of Director, Centre for Distance Education with the first respondent and by proceedings dated 08-07-2005, he was appointed for the said post. Though it was stated in the appointment letter that he was appointed for a period of three years, the petitioner was not able to join duty immediately and he was able to join duty only on 11.09.2006. As per the contract, the period expired on 10-09- 2009, but the petitioner wanted to continue in that post and that, as per the Guidelines of the second respondent till he attains superannuation. But, the Syndicate of the first respondent passed a resolution on 10-07-2009 calling for an application for the post of Director, Centre for Distance Education stating that the post is going to be vacant on 11-09-2009. Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the Resolution and seeking a direction, directing the first respondent to re-designate the petitioner as Professor -cum- Director in accordance with the Guidelines issued by the second respondent and the resolutions dated 31-01-1992 and 22-12-2003.
2.Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the advertisement made in the 'Hindu' dated 30-01-2001, the appointment will be for a term of three years for the first instance and renewable for another term of three years subject to the date of superannuation being 60 years. Further, the Syndicate has also accepted the same and reiterated in their Meeting held in March 2002, that the term of appointment is for a period of three years and renewable for similar terms subject to the date of superannuation being 60 years. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that as per the Distance Education Guidelines(DEC) issued by the second respondent, the Post of Director should be filled on permanent basis and hence, he deemed to have been appointed on permanent basis and therefore, the University has no right to appoint any other person in his place and therefore, the Resolution No.2009.116 of the Syndicate dated 10-07- 2009 should not be given effect to and it has to be quashed.
3.Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that initially, the petitioner was appointed for a period of one year and the Government also permitted the petitioner to work under the first respondent University in the post of Director of on deputation basis as per the G.O(1D)No.10 dated 24-01-2007 Higher Education(E2)Department and in that G.O, it was made clear that the petitioner was sent on deputation for one year. Thereafter, by G.O(I.D)No.178 dated 05-09-2008 the period of one year was extended for another two years and therefore, the petitioner was allowed to work in the post of Director on deputation basis for a period of three year and on the expiry period of three years, he is bound to go back to the parent Institution namely, the fourth respondent, where he was working. He further submitted that the Syndicate has taken into consideration the representation of the petitioner dated 09-03-2009 and has decided not to extend the term of the petitioner for various reasons and resolved to go for appointment through advertisement.
4.Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel further argued that the petitioner has no right to hold the same post as it has been made clear in the appointment order itself that the post is for a period of three years and as per the University Guidelines issued by the second respondent, the post can be filled on deputation basis or on contractual basis. Therefore, the petitioner was aware that he was sent for a period of three years and he accepted the post and he cannot demand and say that he is entitled to continue in the same post even after the expiry of three years and the first respondent shall allot him to some post.
5.I have heard the serious discussion of both counsels.
6.It is admitted that the petitioner was working in the National College and by virtue of the G.O(1D) No.10 dated 24-01-2007 and G.O(1D)No.178 dated 05- 09-2008 referred to above, he was allowed to work in the first respondent University in the post of Director, Centre for Distance Education, for the period of three years. It is further seen from the guidelines of the second respondent in para 4.2 which reads as follows:
"There should be a full time Director for the DEI who will directly report to the Vice-Chancellor. The Directorate will require at least one academic staff for each programme. These positions should be filled on permanent basis failing which these may be filled on deputation or on contractual basis. The provision for adequate number of supporting staff including staff to handle financial matters shall be made".
7.Therefore, it is seen from the guidelines issued by the second respondent, that the post of Director shall be filled on full time basis and that position should be filled on permanent basis failing which it may be filled on deputation or on contractual basis. In other words, guidelines prescribed three modes of appointment either permanent or on deputation or on contract. The filling of the post by permanent is preferred and if for any reason, it could not be done, it can be done by deputation or on contract.
8.In this case, It is seen from the G.Os referred to above, the petitioner was sent on deputation by the third respondent with consent of fourth respondent and a clause was also attached that the petitioner should go back to his parent Institution after completion of deputation. The appointment order also makes it clear that he was appointed for a period of three years. Therefore, looking from any angle, the petitioner cannot claim to have been appointed on permanent basis and either he was appointed on deputation or on contractual basis. In another words, after the completion of the period, the petitioner cannot claim any right over the post. Therefore, in my opinion, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to continue in that post, cannot be accepted.
9.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as per the resolution of the Syndicate of the first respondent University and as per the advertisement, the appointment is for a period of three years and renewable for another term of three years subject to the date of superannuation being 60 years and hence, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for further period of three years. According to me, option given in that clause in the Advertisement "renewable for another term of three years" is given only to the employer and it is not given to the employee. When the employer namely the first respondent does not want to exercise the option, the petitioner cannot insist that he is entitled to another three years. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has sent a representation on 09-03-2009 and without considering the representation of the petitioner, the University has passed the impugned resolution and hence, the resolution must be quashed.
10. It is seen from the resolution that the filling of the post of Director which is falling vacant on 11.09.2009, was accepted and the University has passed a resolution to fill the post through advertisement in leading dailies. Though the impugned notice of the resolution is silent relating to the representation of the petitioner, it has been made clear in the counter affidavit that the representation of the petitioner dated 09-03-2009 was considered and thereafter only, the resolution was passed. Therefore, in my opinion, non-mentioning of the consideration of the representation, by the Syndicate in the minutes, is immaterial.
11.Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that they have called for an advertisement in the daily newspaper published on 09-09-2009 and the last date is on 09-10-2009. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner to apply for the same, if he is otherwise qualified.
12.Having regard to the reasons stated above, the petitioner cannot claim to the post as of right as he was sent on deputation for a period of three years and even as per the appointment order, his period was for three years and thereafter, he has no right to claim that post. Hence, I do not find, any merits in the writ petition.
13.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P(MD)Nos. 1 and 2 of 2009 are closed.
gsr TO
1.The Bharathidasan University, Rep.by its Registrar, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Director, Distance Education Council, New Delhi.
3.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai-600 009.
4.The Secretary, National College, Tiruchirappalli-1.