N ZAHIR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are all M.E. Degree holders. THEy have approached this court with a grievance that for direct recruitment to the post of Lecturers, they are also made to sit for the written examination and on the facts of the case , they should be straight-away allowed to appear for the interview without taking the written examination.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, after completing their bachelor's Degree in the engineering courses in various faculties, they were appointed by Anna University as Graduate trainees (Lecturers) in various Government Engineering Colleges in Tamil Nadu. Out of 17 petitioners, the petitioners 1 to 10 were appointed by the Anna University in proceedings dated 30. 8. 2002 and since then they are working in Alagappa Chettiar College of Engineering and Technology, Karaikudi. The petitioners 11 & 12 were appointed on 23. 7. 2002 and are working in government College of Engineering, Tirunelveli and the petitioners 13 to 17 were appointed on 22. 7. 2002 and are working in various engineering colleges in Tamil Nadu. They were appointed on contract basis and in terms of clause 4 of the appointment orders, their experience as Graduate Trainees will be considered for the purpose of future appointment viz. , regular appointment whenever the vacancy arises. During the period of Graduate Trainee of three years, the petitioners had qualified themselves for M.E. Degree on part-time basis and now they are eligible to be considered for the post of Lecturers in engineering courses and in terms of clause 4, they should be considered for the appointment without reference to any written examination.

(3.) THE relief sought for in the writ petition is only in the nature of altering the conditions in the prospectus, which cannot be ordered in exercise of the power under Article 226 of THE Constitution of india. On the other hand, if the petitioners are allowed to directly appear for the interview, it would amount to discrimination as against the other eligible and qualified candidates as per the prospectus. Such discrimination would amount to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power and the same shall not be in conformity with Article 14 of THE Constitution of India. As I have held that clause 4 read with clause 7 of the appointment order does not confer any right on the petitioners and there was no question of expectation much less legitimate expectation on the part of the petitioners that they would be considered for regular, permanent or tenure appointment without reference to the recruitment process, the Supreme Court judgments relied upon by the learned senior Counsel for the petitioners on the question of legitimate expectation are not applicable to the facts of the present case.