T VENKATARAMAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus for the reliefs as stated therein. ORDER The petitioner prays for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the impugned proceedings No.468 dated 29-9-2001, to quash the same and direct the second respondent to consider and appoint the petitioner as 'Principal' of the second respondent college, namely, D.G.Vaishnav College, Arumbakkam, Chennai-106.

(2.) Though very many contentions were raised while seeking for the issuance of the above writ, Mr.Jyothimani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mainly concentrated his submissions on the ground that the fourth respondent does not satisfy the required qualification for being appointed as the 'Principal' of the second respondent college.He also contended that the appointment of the fourth respondent was not fully approved by the third respondent University, inasmuch as, the resolution dated 4-10-2001 of the third university respondent granting the approval was only provisional subject to verification of records of the selection by the University.According to the learned counsel, as per UGC Notification of March 2000 prescribing the qualifications for the various posts including the post of 'Principal, and the qualification for the post of 'Principal' is 'a Master's Degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale apart from possessing 'Ph.D.' along with experience of 15 years if the selection is from Professor's Grade and 10 years experience if the selection is from the Reader's Grade. The learned counsel further contended that by virtue of the powers vested with the UGC, under Section 26(e) of the UGC Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the UGC Act), the qualifications prescribed by the UGC alone would prevail and any claim of either the second respondent or the third respondent university to the effect that the qualifications can also be prescribed by the third respondent is not valid.According to the learned counsel, the post of a 'Principal' can only be made by way of selection for appointment from 'open advertisement' and can never be by way of promotion.The learned counsel relied upon a communication of the UGC dated 11-10-2001 in support of his submissions.

(3.) While referring to Rule 11(4) of the rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Rules, 1976, the learned counsel contended that by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution, the power given to the UGC under Section 26(e) of the UGC Act would prevail, that in any event, when even Rule 11(4) talks of qualified teachers, the qualification as prescribed by the UGC is 'Ph.D. along with possession of P.G. with at least 55% of marks and inasmuch as, the fourth respondent does not possess a 'Ph.D', he is not even entitled to be considered.The learned counsel also relied upon G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 24-3-1999, by which, the State of Tamil Nadu adopted the UGC Regulations prescribing the qualifications for the post of 'Principal'.