E MURALIDHARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for quo warranto or direction to the first respondent to show on what authority the 2nd respondent can hold the post of the Director of the Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai.

(2.) THE short matrix of the case of the petitioner is set out in nutshell hereunder:- (a) He is an International Scientist and Consultant Biomedical Engineer. He did his B. Tech, M. S and Phd. , Degrees and served as Research Affairs Secretary of student Union for three year and also served as member of IIT Senate Sub-Committees- Board of Academic Research and Library Advisory Committee. He received Post Doctoral Research Fellowship from Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA and the prestigious Inoue Foundation for Science International Fellowship, Japan. He served as visiting research Professor at Ehime University Medical School, Japan. He has published more than 50 research papers in national and international journals and conferences. After serving in abroad, he had served as Executive committee member of the IIT, Madras Alumni Association for three years. He hails from a family of freedom fighters and his grandfather was a prominent leader of Indian National Congress. (b) As a citizen of India and an academically highly qualified professional interested in the social and academic activities and an alumnus of IIT, Madras he has the locus standi to file this writ petition as a public interest litigation. He filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) W. P. (Civil) No. 558 of 2007 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. On 29. 10. 2007, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India in the first Bench orally directed him to approach the High Court, Madras for the remedy accordingly the writ petition filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court was withdrawn. (c) The IIT is an institution started by the Act of Parliament called the " Technology Act 59 of 1961". It is run with the 100% taxpayer's money provided by the Central Government. The second respondent was appointed as Director of IIT, Madras on 24. 12. 2001. His five years term of office ended on 23. 12. 2006. Instead of stepping down from the office and handing over the charge to the senior most Professors, he continued in his office till 30th June 2007 with the connivance of 3rd and 4th respondents and without any orders from the first respondent. The 4th respondent by a Circular dated 1. 2. 2007 extended the period of Director for six months till 30. 6. 2007. The 4th respondent who was a junior officer working under the second respondent had no authority to issue the said order. As per the Act only the council with the prior approval of the Visitor can renew the term of office of the Director. (d) On 4. 6. 2007, the selection committee constituted by the IIT Council held an interview at New Delhi for the post of Director of IIT, Madras. The second respondent attended the interview for the said post. While so, The Hindu in its news paper on 2. 7. 2007 reported that the 2nd respondent was re-appointed one more term for a period of five years. The term "re-appointment" did not find any place in the Act or Statutes of IIT. The Minister for Human Resources Development in his capacity as the Chairman of the IIT Council had unilaterally taken a decision and re-appointed the second respondent. This is in clear violation of the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act, which reads that the Director of each institute shall be appointed by the Council with the prior approval of the Visitor. There are many violations in the order of re-appointment of the second respondent and he should not be allowed to continue even a single day in the office as Director of IIT Madras and a new person should be appointed immediately. (e) Ever since the 2nd respondent took over as the Director, the administration of the Institute has gone from bad to worse. No rules, regulations or administrative procedures were followed. Especially in the faculty appointments, the second respondent involve in open violations of the High Court and Supreme Court orders. Thus, on several grounds the appointment of the second respondent as Director of IIT, Madras was questioned before this Court.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit had been filed on behalf of the first respondent wherein the following facts have been set out. (a) The writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Apex Court was dismissed without giving any leave to file writ petition before this Court and hence the present writ petition is not maintainable. There is no fresh cause of action as the averments are similar to what were averred before the Supreme Court of India and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. Professor. M. S. Ananth, the second respondent herein, was appointed as Director, IIT Madras for a period of five years with effect from 24. 12. 2001. Accordingly, his five year term expired on 23. 12. 2006. However, as per Statute 15 (3) of IIT Madras read with Sl. No. 2 of Schedule A (Contract of Service) Council may appoint an eminent person as Director on contract for a period not exceeding five years, with a provision for renewal for further periods provided that every such appointment and terms there of shall be subject to the prior approval of the visitor. Provided further that if the appointee on conclusion of the period of service of five years is below 65 years of age, his service shall continue till the 30th June of the academic year in which the appointee concludes the said period of five years service or till he attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, Prof. M. S. Ananth continued to be Director upto 30. 6. 2007 as he had not completed 65 years of age as on 23. 12. 2006. (b) The process for selection of Director of IIT, Madras was initiated by the Ministry in December 2006. A Search-cum-Selection Committee was constituted with the approval of the Hon'ble Human Resource Minister and nominations for the post were solicited from eminent persons. The Committee recommended the name of Professor Ananth for reappointment as Director of IIT, Madras for another five years with effect from 1. 7. 2007. Minister of Human Resource Development in his capacity as Chairman of Council of IITs approved the decision of the Search -Cum-Selection Committee. Thereafter, after obtaining the approval of the Visitor to this recommendation, he was re-appointed for five years from 1. 7. 2007 (c) The approval of the Visitor to the reappointment was granted on 28. 6. 2007. There is no violations of the provisions of The Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 and the Statutes of IIT Madras. Thus, the counter affidavit sought for dismissal of the writ petition.