M. RAMAMOORTHY Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR, ALAGAPPA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is presently working as Assistant Registrar in Alagappa University, Karaikudi. Formerly, the fourth respondent was also working as Assistant Registrar. The next avenue of promotion is for the post of Deputy Registrar. During the year 2012, there arose a vacancy for the post of Deputy Registrar. The said post is governed by the Alagappa University Statute issued under Section 44 of the Alagappa University Act, 1985. Statute -5 Clause -3 states that all promotions shall be by selection based on merit from among the candidates possessing the qualifications prescribed, seniority being considered when merit and efficiency are approximately equal. Clause -4 of Statute -5 states that in respect of administrative and other non -teaching staff, appointments shall be made by the Syndicate from the panel recommended by the Selection Committee constituted for this purpose by the Syndicate and such Selection Committee constituted shall consist of five members as enumerated therein. In tune with the said provisions, for filling up the post of Deputy Registrar, as referred to above, a Selection Committee was duly constituted. At that time, there were as many as 12 persons working in the University as Assistant Registrar who were qualified for being considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar. Individual call letters were therefore sent by the Registrar to all the candidates to appear for interview to be held on 19.05.2012. In the said call letter, it was indicated that the selection will be on the basis of merit -cum -seniority.

(2.) THE petitioner and the third respondent were also included in the said panel and they received call letters. Out of 12 candidates to whom call letters were issued, one Mr.S.Pandirasu did not appear for interview. The other 11 candidates participated in the interview. The Selection Committee members separately awarded marks at the time of interview, for the candidates, on assessing their merit and efficiency. Total marks ear -marked for interview is 250. Every Selection Committee member was to award marks up to 50. Finally the Selection Committee recommended the name of the third respondent for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar. The fourth respondent had secured 186 marks out of 250, and he topped the list. The petitioner had secured only 80 marks. Accordingly, the Selection Committee recommended to the Syndicate, the name of the third respondent for promotion as Deputy Registrar. Relying on the said recommendation and accepting the same, the University ultimately appointed the third respondent as Deputy Registrar.

(3.) AMONG many grounds raised in the writ petition, one of the main grounds canvassed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, interview was not conducted by the Selection Committee in a fair manner so as to objectively assess the merit and efficiency of the individual candidates. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in an arbitrary manner, the interview was conducted, in which selection was made based only on 100% of marks awarded at the time of interview. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the selection based on only the interview marks offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as arbitrariness is very much possible in making such selection. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there was no scientific method adopted by the Committee to award marks at the time of interview. For these reasons, according to the petitioner, the proceedings of the Selection Committee recommending the third respondent for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar, is liable to be rejected and consequentially the order appointing the third respondent as Deputy Registrar, is liable to be set aside.