N LINGAPPAN Vs. SYNDICATE ANNA UNIVERSITY CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an existing Professor in the Department of Chemistry of Anna University. He has come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the appointment of the 5th respondent as the Lecturer in Chemistry. THE said appointment of the 5th respondent took place as early as 10.9.1998. His appointment was approved by the Syndicate vide its Resolution No.118.3.5 of the 118th Meeting of the Central Government held on 18.2.1988.

(2.) INCIDENTALLY the petitioner belonged to the same Department as that of the 5th respondent. While the 5th respondent is holding the post of Assistant Professor, the petitioner holds the post of Professor. In his affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, he had stated that he works in the very same Department right from 1974 and he is aware of the 5th respondent's appointment when it was made even in the year 1988. Therefore, it is not as if the petitioner came to know the alleged defect/lack of qualification of the 5th respondent in holding the post of Assistant Professor.

(3.) FURTHER, the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Neetu v. State of Punjab, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 614 observed as follows: