S SANTHANAKRISHNAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second and fourth respondents relating to the petitioner's employment and quash the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.49711/F34/93 dated 06.11.1995 and of the fourth respondent in TC.No.648/A/95/96 dated 30.11.1995 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service of the fourth respondent with full salary and other attendant benefits.

(2.) The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition has stated hat he is a Post Graduate in Science and Education and also obtained Doctorate in Education. A temporary vacancy arose in the fourth respondent's college in the leave vacancy of one S.M.Ramanujam from 30.01.1991 to 10.04.1991. The fourth respondent applied to the Employment Exchange to send names of suitable candidates and it had submitted four persons, including the petitioner for the post and the petitioner alone appeared for interview and the fourth respondent selected him and he was temporarily appointed as lecturer from 04.02.1991 and he worked up to 10.04.1991. Subsequently, S.M.Ramanujam retired from service and a permanent vacancy arose on 01.06.1991. The fourth respondent addressed to the National Employment Office, Madras for providing suitable candidates for appointment in the college in the vacancy reserved for backward classes and the Employment Exchange had replied that no suitable candidate was available and also issued non-availability certificate on 02.09.1991. In view of the non-availability of schedule caste candidate, the petitioner was temporarily appointed from 10.09.1991. The third respondent also approved the petitioner's appointment made by the fourth respondent. Subsequently, the fourth respondent wrote a letter to the third respondent for the fixation of salary as per the University Grants Commission and at that time, it was found that the appointment of the petitioner was not made properly and the third respondent sent a letter to the fourth respondent on 15.06.1993 wherein it was made clear that the appointment of the petitioner for the period 30.01.1991 to 10.04.1991 was against the rules and called upon the fourth respondent to show cause why the payment for the petitioner should not be stopped. Subsequently, the third respondent sent a letter to the fourth respondent on 24.09.1993 wherein it was made clear that the appointment of the petitioner was against the rules and the fourth respondent was called upon to recover the amount from the petitioner for the period 11.09.1991 to May, 1993. After exchange of letter and communications, the second respondent addressed a letter to the Secretary to Government, Education, science and Technology on 08.02.1995 wherein all the details of the appointment of the petitioner were furnished and also sought for ratification of his appointment. But, however, the Government by communication dated 27.10.1995, rejected the recommendations made by the second respondent and directed the second respondent to communicate the same to the parties concerned. The said order was communicated to the third respondent who in turn communicated to fourth respondent and the fourth respondent communicated the order to the petitioner on 30.11.1995. The communication dated 22.11.1995 sent by the second respondent and the communication dated 30.11.1995 sent by the fourth respondent are impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) The second respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the fourth respondent/College namely, V.O.C College of Education, Tuticorin is an aided institution and the same is governed by the Tamil Nadu Private College Regulation Act 1976 and Rules 1976. As per rules, recruitment should be made only through Employment Exchange. Rule of reservation should also be followed for recruitment. Separate roster should be maintained for temporary appointments and as well for regular appointments. The petitioner was appointed in leave vacancy from 31.01.1991 to 10.04.1991. On the retirement of S.M.Ramanujam on 31.05.1991, a permanent vacancy arose from 01.06.1991. According to rules of reservation that regular vacancy should be filled up by a scheduled Caste candidate. But, the petitioner does not belong to scheduled caste. A separate roster system has got to be followed for a regular vacancy. The regular vacancy arose from 01.06.1991, reserved for scheduled caste candidates. But, however as per the non-availability certificate dated 02.09.1991 issued by the Professional Employment Officer, Madras, the fourth respondent requested the Employment Exchange to send backward class candidates with M.A.,/M.Sc.,/M.Com., with M.Ed., and Ph.D., (Education) qualification and as a matter of fact, Ph.D., is not prescribed qualification for the appointment of Lecturer in B.Ed., Colleges. The fourth respondent has not addressed to the Employment Exchange properly before appointing the petitioner. It is further stated that the vacancy arose was for scheduled caste vacancy and the petitioner was not a scheduled caste candidate and therefore he could not be appointed in the scheduled caste vacancy and therefore his appointment was questioned and orders have been passed.