THANJAI TAMIL PALKALAIKAZHAGA AASIRIYAR PERAVAI Vs. TAMIL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent herein relating to the impugned resolution No. 97. 06 (1) dated 21. 1. 1997 of the Syndicate and the consequential orders of promotion independently issued by the 1st respondent/registrar in Proceeding No. ROC. 3178/a1/95 dated 26. 1. 97 in favour of the Respondents 2 to 5 herein, quash the said resolution and the orders of promotion as illegal.

(2.) THE facts of the case as narrated by the petitioners herein are that the petitioner association is a registered Association; that due to the stagnation of promotion in the cadres of Reader, Senior Lecturers in the Academic Wing of the University even though they were possessing higher educational qualifications and long period of service, the University/1st respondent had introduced a scheme called Career Development Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the scheme) for the University teachers; that the eligibility condition for promotion of the Lecturers working in the University is that those who are all possessing Ph. D. , or M. D. , qualification and also who have completed 8 years of service should be considered for being promoted as Readers; that their experience after completing Ph. D. , as Post-Doctoral experience may be taken into consideration upto two years; that the qualification for Readers for being promoted as Professors is Ph. D. , or M. D. , degree; that the University also extended the above benefits to the persons who have not possessed Ph. D. , degree but having M. Phil degree and in that case, their period of experience as Lecturer is prescribed as 10 years with a condition that he should acquire Ph. D. , degree within a period of three years failing which he will not be eligible to draw future annual increments. The relaxation provision in the educational qualification has not been provided in the rules framed under the Scheme.

(3.) IT is stated that the 2nd respondent - S. Subramaniam was working as Project Officer in the Adult Education Department and he possessed M. A. , degree only and the 3rd respondent - M. Athiyaman was appointed as Diver in the Department of Underwater Archaeology and he possessed only B. Tech. , degree and subsequently, he acquired M. Tech. , degree; that since they have not possessed the prescribed qualification as per the Scheme, the Selection Committee rejected their names; that the 4th respondent - S. Baskaran was initially appointed temporarily as a Compilator in the Computer Centre of the University and he possessed M. Sc. , (Maths) degree along with two years experience in a private concern in computer operation and now, he was promoted as Senior Programmer (Reader Scale) by violating the rules and regulations of the scheme; that, the 5th respondent - P. Sadasivam was appointed as Programming Assistant with effect from 18. 7. 1986 and he possessed the qualification of M. Sc. , (Statistics) with P. G. diploma in computer Education besides one year experience in a private concern was promoted as Computer Programmer (Reader scale); the impugned promotions have been made violating the rules and regulations and the Government orders without having due regard to the educational qualification, service experience and academic excellence of the members of the petitioner association under the Scheme; that the staff working in Computer Centre are not academic staff of the University nor discharging any academic nature of work in the university; that the overall seniority of the members of the petitioner association is affected; the Norms Committee constituted for making a uniform policy for promotion rejected the names of the 2nd and 3rd respondents since they do not possess M. Phil. , or Ph. D. , degree; that the names of the 2nd and 3rd respondents have been again considered by the Syndicate of the 1st respondent University in Resolution No. 96. 53 dated 3. 8. 96 with a direction to refer the matter again to the Norms Committee; that the Syndicate specifically justified the name of the 2nd respondent can be considered for Reader post from the date of his acquiring Ph. D. Degree; that later on even though the 2nd respondent has not possessed the requisite educational qualification of M. Phil. , or Ph. D. , degree, by a subsequent resolution in No. 97. 06 (1) dated 21. 1. 97 he was straightaway recommended for promotion as Reader; that on the basis of the said resolution, the first respondent by proceedings dated 26. 1. 1997 promoted the 2nd respondent as Assistant Director (Reader Scale) in the Adult Education Department with effects from 1. 10. 96; that the Norms Committee which has rejected the names of the 2nd and 3rd respondents for promotion as Readers further recommended the 2nd and 3rd respondents for promotion as Readers and has gone one step further recommending the name of 2nd respondent for promotion As Assistant Director (Reader Scale); that based on the Norms Committee report the Syndicate of the first respondent University promoted the 3rd respondent as Reader in the Under-Water Archaeology Department; that the respondents 4 and 5 have been promoted as Senior Programmer in the Reader Scale; that even though the respondents 2 to 5 have not possessed M. Phil. , or Ph. D. ,degree they have been promoted as Readers and they have become eligible to be considered for the overall academic seniority in the university; that their promotion is illegal, unlawful, contrary to constitutional right guaranteed to the petitioner's rights; that the respondents 2 to 5 have not satisfied the educational qualification of M. Phil. , or Ph. D. , Degree; that they have not possessed the experience required under the scheme; that though the Norms Committee as well as the Syndicate had earlier rejected the proposal for including the names of the respondents 2 to 5 for being considered for promotion, under the scheme, the very same Norms Committee and the Syndicate adopted a different yardstick of U. G. C guidelines prescribed for the purpose of direct recruitment; that the University has also violated all the rules framed under the Service jurisprudence and granted concessions to the respondents 2 to 5 and in the case of Dr. N. Joseph the rules were implemented strictly and he was granted promotion with effect from 17. 11. 96 only after his completion of eight years of service; that though Dr. Joseph has served in the University after obtaining a doctorate degree as Post-Doctoral Fellow but that service was not taken into consideration for reckoning the period of 8 years of service even though specific provision was made in the eligibility rule, the University granted many concessions to the respondents 2 to 5 and hence, the present Writ Petition.