B KAMARAJ Vs. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to implement the order of approval made by the 1st respondent herein in his Letter No.Pa.Mu.30163/C3/96 dated 31.7.1996 and appoint the petitioner herein as Associate Lecturer in Mathematics in Murugappa Polytechnic, Avadi, Chennai 600 002.

(2.) The petitioner was working on temporary basis as Instructor in Mathematics in the Murugappa Polytechnic from the year 1993. The aforesaid Institute is an aided Institute. Subsequently, a regular vacancy for the post of Associate Lecturer in Mathematics had arisen, and the third respondent namely the Principal of the Institute requested the Assistant Director of Professional and Executive Employment Exchange to send list of eligible candidates for interview. However, the Assistant Director by a communication dated 19.9.94 issued a non-availability certificate, as the candidates were not available at that stage. Since, the candidates were not available, an advertisement was made and by holding an interview, the present petitioner was selected by the Staff Selection Committee of the Institute and the 2nd respondent namely the Correspondent of the Institute sought for approval from the 1st respondent. At that stage, the first respondent refused to approve the selection on the ground that the non-availability certificate was valid only for a period for six months and since the selection had been made after the period of six months, such selection could not be approved. Thereafter, the third respondent again requested the Assistant Director of Professional and Executive Employment Exchange to send a fresh list of candidates. Since the petitioner was qualified his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Thereafter, an interview was held on 14.8.1995 and the Staff Selection Committee again selected the petitioner. Thereafter, the 2nd and 3rd respondents sought for approval of the first respondent for appointment of the petitioner as Associate Lecturer in Mathematics. After prolonged correspondence, the first respondent approved the selection in Letter.No.Pa.Mu.30163/C3/96 dated 31.7.96 which was sent to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. Inspite of the aforesaid approval, the 2nd and 3rd respondents however, did not issue any formal appointment order to the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that at that stage, the 3rd respondent wanted to appoint his own daughter-in-law and therefore did not issue any formal letter of appointment. While the matter stood thus, a fresh list of candidates was called for. This action on the part of the 2nd and 3rd respondents forced the present petitioner to file the present writ petitioner claiming for the relief as indicated above. The petitioner has also filed a petition seeking for an injunction and it appears that an order of interim injunction had been passed, prohibiting the 2nd and 3rd respondents from calling for a fresh candidates.

(3.) A separate counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents taking similar stand. It is contended in the counter affidavit that until an order of appointment is issued to the petitioner, he does not have vested right to get an order of appointment. The allegation that the 3rd respondent wanted to appoint his own daughter-in-law has been denied by stating that the said Principal had retired in the mean time and no such appointment has been made. The basic fact that the petitioner had been selected and subsequently, the first respondent had approved such selection has not been denied. It has been further stated that the work of the petitioner as a temporary instructor was not satisfactory and for the aforesaid reason the petitioner was not appointed.