K MANOHARAN Vs. M GUNASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE K. Manoharan, Instructor (Sudhai Sculpture), Government college of Architecture and Sculpture, Mamallapuram, aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 07. 05. 2002 made in o. A. No. 1527 of 1997, has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and for direction, directing respondents 2 and 3 not to regularise the services of the first respondent in the post of Principal, Government College of architecture and Sculpture, Mamallapuram, Kancheepuram District, but to terminate his services forthwith and consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment as Principal of the said College.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he is a Diploma holder in architecture and Sculpture ( Sudhai Sculpture) and also a Post Graduate degree holder in M. A. (History ). He rendered more than 20 years of service in the department and had rich practical experience as Sthapathi for more than 15 years, eligible for being appointed as Principal of the College. He is qualified and eligible for promotion by recruitment by transfer as Principal, as per the Rules fixed by the Government for appointment to the post of principal in G. O. Ms. No. 422 Education Department dated 31. 03. 1986, since he possesses a Diploma in Architecture and Sculpture as well as practical experience as Sthapathi for more than 10 years as prescribed in the Government order, besides M. A. Degree in History. However, the first respondent herein, who was working as Lecturer in the Tamil University at Thanjavur was appointed temporarily as Principal under Rule 10 (a) (i) of the General Rules for Tamil nadu State and Subordinate Service in and by G. O. Ms. No. 50 Tamil Development and Culture Department dated 08. 02. 1996. Though the first respondent is not fully qualified for the said post and the petitioner is eligible and qualified for being appointed, the first respondent has been appointed by means of direct recruitment, which is not permissible. Though his appointment is under rule 10 (a) (i) and the same cannot be continued beyond one year period, but his services have been extended; hence, the petitioner preferred O. A. No. 1527 of 199 7 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for direction to respondents 2 and 3 herein not to extend the appointment of the first respondent as Principal and for promoting him by recruitment by transfer to the said post. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 07. 05. 2002, without considering the relevant Rules, dismissed his application along with another application filed by G. Thirugnanam and G. Perumal. Against the dismissal of his application, viz. , O. A. No. 1527 of 1997, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) HEARD Mr. M. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, mr. S. Silambannan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. E. Sampathkumar, learned Government Advocate for respondents 2 and 3.