G. MUTHULAKSHMI Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petitioner has sought for issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare the selection and appointment of the seventh respondent herein as Assistant Professor (Tamil) in the sixth respondent college, namely, Sri Parasakthi College for Women, Courtallam as illegal, null and void and for a further direction to the respondents 5 and 6, namely, Chairman, College Committee/Governing Board, Sri Parasakthi College for Women and Secretary of the same college to re-do the selection for the said post, pursuant to the notification given in Tamil daily "Daily Thanthi" dated 27.12.2015 and pass such further or other suitable orders.

(2.) Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has acquired her Bachelor's Degree in Tamil, Post Graduate Degree in Tamil, M.Phil and Ph.D (Tamil) from Sri Parasakthi College for Women, Courtallam, the sixth respondent herein. After acquiring the aforesaid qualifications, she was appointed as Guest Lecturer in the Department of Tamil in the sixth respondent college with effect from 1.12.2011 and she worked there till 2.3.2016 with the utmost satisfaction of the college authorities without any break. Having put in 4 years and 3 months of experience as Assistant Professor (Tamil) in the sixth respondent college, which is affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, the fourth respondent herein, on seeing the advertisement in the Tamil daily "Daily Thanthi" dated 27.11.2015 inviting applications for appointment to 25 posts of Assistant Professors and one post of Librarian, fixing the last date for submission of the applications on 11.12.2015, the petitioner, being an eligible candidate for the post of Assistant Professor (Tamil), submitted her application under the MBC category on 4.12.2015 enclosing all her educational qualifications and other details including the experience certificate issued by Sri Parasakthi College for Women, Courtallam. Subsequently, the college also invited the petitioner for interview through a call letter bearing Ka.No.A3/380/2015-16 dated 12.2.2016 informing the time and venue for interview at 10.00 A.M., on 1.3.2016 in the college premises of the sixth respondent. Mr. Isaac Mohanlal further submitted that as per the information, 165 applications were received for the post of Assistant Professor in Tamil and in addition, the employment exchange also sponsored a list of 28 eligible candidates, of which around 84 participated in the interview and for all the posts, interview were held for three days from 29.2.2016 to 2.3.2016. Since the petitioner applied to the post of Assistant Professor (Tamil) in the Department of Tamil, interview took place for two days on 29.2.2016 and 1.3.2016 and the petitioner also appeared for the interview on 1.3.2016 at 10.00 A.M. During the interview, she was also asked to produce all the original educational certificates, which she accordingly produced, whereas the interview was conducted for less than five minutes. However, the petitioner fared well in the interview and answered all the questions rightly to the full satisfaction of the selection committee and on completion of the interview, she was informed that the results would be intimated soon. However, to her shock and surprise, on the very following day viz., on 3.3.2016, the appointment orders were issued for 23 posts and all the selected candidates also joined duty on 4.3.2016 and for want of eligible members, three posts are yet to be filled up. Since the seventh respondent Mrs. Thangaduraichi was selected and appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Tamil) under the MBC category, the petitioner approached the sixth respondent college to provide the details of the selection process and the marks awarded to each candidate. But the college refused to provide the same. Hence, an application was made to the Principal of the college under the Right to Information Act on 15.3.2016 requesting to provide the details of the selection process. The Principal, in his reply dated 7.4.2016, without even mentioning the method of selection and the award of marks and how the merit and ability of the candidates were assessed, simply made a mention in the reply that the candidates were selected on the basis of merit and ability. With regard to the second question as to who issued the appointment order and the mode of communicating the same, the Principal replied that the appointment orders were issued by the Secretary of the college and the same were also communicated to the candidates through registered post. However, the appointment order of the seventh respondent was not furnished to the petitioner. Moreover, the marks awarded to the candidates and the copies of the certificates and further details as to the conduct of the governing board after the interview, were not provided. Therefore, the petitioner filed applications under the Right to Information Act on 13.4.2016 and 15.4.2016 seeking for the aforementioned details. However, there is no reply till now, it is pleaded.

(3.) Arguing further, the learned senior counsel submitted that in the reply sent by the sixth respondent college, it was found that the appointment orders were issued on 3.3.2016 by the Secretary of the college and all the candidates also joined duty on the very next day, namely, 4.3.2016 and there was an admission in the reply that no Appointment Committee was convened after the interview. Emphasizing further, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal further argued that there was a local holiday on 3.3.2016 in the districts of Tirunelveli, Thoothukudi and Kanyakumari due to the birth anniversary of Swamithoppu Ayya Vaikuntaswamy and the sixth respondent college also announced a holiday on that day. While so, it is not known how the appointment orders were issued on that day through registered post and it is a mystery as to how the appointees joined duty on 4.3.2016 after receiving the appointment orders from outside Tirunelveli district. The above chain of events would make it quite evident that the entire selection process was made only as an eye-wash and the appointment orders were issued selectively for the candidates who were already selected by the management. Moreover, in the case of direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor, the selection should be on the basis of merit and ability, because, as per the UGC norms, the vacancies should be notified through all India advertisement. While so, the act of the sixth respondent inviting candidates only at the regional level through advertisement in the Tamil daily "Daily Thanthi" dated 27.11.2015 is patently illegal. Contending further, the learned senior counsel submitted that when the sixth respondent conducted the selection merely based on the oral interview and without awarding marks, the appointments made are illegal. Therefore, the selection and appointment of the seventh respondent for the post of Assistant Professor (Tamil) in the sixth respondent college on the basis of the notification dated 27.11.2015 is illegal and null and void. Moreover, the appointment orders were issued by the Secretary of the college without convening the Appointment Committee or the Governing Board's resolution. Besides, when there was a local holiday announced to the districts of Tirunelveli, Thoothukudi and Kanyakumari on 3.3.2016 due to the birth anniversary of Swamithoppu Ayya Vaikuntaswamy, the Secretary of the sixth respondent college issuing appointment orders on 3.3.2016 through registered post and the immediate joining of the selected candidates on the very next day i.e., 4.3.2016 at 10.00 A.M., including the candidates residing outside the district of Tirunelveli, creates a doubt in the selection process. Referring to the comparative merits of the petitioner and the seventh respondent, it was stated that the committee ought to have seen that the petitioner passed B.A. (Tamil), M.A.(Tamil), M.Phil and Ph.D in regular course and also attended several seminars with 14 publications, whereas the seventh respondent had her U.G., and P.G.Degrees in Distance Education and not even completed Ph.D. Moreover, the selection committee ought to have seen that the petitioner has got 4 years and 3 months of teaching experience as Guest Lecturer in the sixth respondent college, whereas the seventh respondent joined the college as Guest Lecturer only in February, 2016. But she has been selected and appointed. When the petitioner is better qualified, meritorious and more suitable than that of the seventh respondent, the appointment now made by the sixth respondent is not on the basis of merit and ability, but on the basis of extraneous consideration. Therefore, the appointment of the seventh respondent should be set aside, he pleaded.