T A CHIDAMBARAM Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PADMINI JESUDURAI, J.: The petitioner in W.P.Nos.6029 and 6108 of 1987 is the appellant in W.A.Nos.664 and 665 of 1988 and respondents 1 to 5 therein, are the respondents here.

(2.) THE petitioner (parties ranked as in the writ petitions) filed W.P.No.6029 of 1987 for a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of the third respondent as Reader in the Department of Criminology of the University of Madras, the first respondent here and W.P.No.6108 of 1987 for a writ of certiorari to quash the above order of appointment. Pending the above writ petitions, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8783 of 1987 in W.P.No.6108 of 1987 for an injunction restraining respondents 1 and 2 from confirming the third respondent in the above post and also filed W.M.P.No.8685 of 1987 in W.P.No.6029 of 1987 for an injunction restraining respondents 1 and 2 from assigning any research students to the third respondent. Learned Judge dismissed W.M.P.Nos.8665 and 8783 of 1987 in view of the fact that the third respondent had already been confirmed in the post and since the appointment itself would be subject to the result of the writ petitions held that the injunction need not be issued. W.A.Nos.665 and 664 of 1988 are filed against the above orders.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed the writ petitions on the following averments: He is a Law Graduate, who has also been enrolled as an Advocate. He contemplated joining MA. in Criminology in the first respondent University and applied for the same. He found that the third respondent, who was appointed as a Reader in the Department of Criminology, does not possess the basic qualifications required by the Rules and Regulations of the first respondent and the basic norms prescribed for the above post by the University Grants Commission. THE necessary qualifications were advertised in the local dailies on the basis of the rules and regulations of the first respondent, which required that a Reader in Criminology, should hava a Post Graduate degree either in the subject or in related subject, but should have Ph.D in the subjects, with teaching and research experience of not less than five years. THE Specialisation required at the Doctoral level was Dilinquency. As against these basic qualifications, the third respondent, who, though he held an M.Sc, degree in Geography and an M.A., Degree in Criminology, and a Ph.D. only in Geography. He was not a Ph.D. in Criminology. Even his teaching experience, which at the time of the appointment was about 15 years, was wholly as a Tutor and later as Assistant Professor in Geography. He had no teaching and research experience in Criminology. THE specialisation called for in the advertisement was Delinquency, which the third respondent did not have. Even his thesis for the Ph.D. only related to a pattern of crime in a particular geographical area viz., Madras City. THE third respondent thus lacked even the basis qualifications. THE Establishment Section of the University, finding that the third respondent did not have the basis qualifications for the post, did not send him the interview card. Later, at the instance of the second respondent, the interview card was sent to the third respondent just a few hours before the interview. THE fifth respondent, who also attended the same interview for the same post, had an M.A., Degree in Criminology with Ph.D., in Criminology with five years of teaching and research experience in that subject. Overlooking the legitimate claims of the fifth respondent, for extraneous considerations and in bad faith, the second respondent had appointed the third respondent to the post. THE fifth respondent filed (P. Thiagaraj v. University of Madras and Ors.) W.P.No.3270 of 1985 before this Court for a writ of Prohibition, restraining the first respondent from appointing the third respondent since the latter was not qualified. THE writ petition, however, later came to be dismissed as infructuous, as the order appointing the third respondent, had already been issued prior to the filing of the writ petition. THE fifth respondent thereupon filed W.P.No.4289 of 1985 challenging the appointment. Meantime the post of Lecturer in the Department of Criminology was advertised and the fifth respondent, who applied was interviewed and selected. THE appointment order was, however, withheld on the advise of the second respondent that the appointment order would not be issued to him unless he withdrew W.P.No.4289 of 1985 (R.Thiagaraj v. Vice Chancellor, University of Madras and 3 Ors.) THE fifth respondent, left with no other alternative, withdrew the writ petition. THE appointment order was thereafter issued to the fifth respondent. Though the illegality in the appointment of the third respondent as a Reader in the Department of Criminology was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities, the third respondent was able to scuttle every representation, by bringing pressure on the concerced authorities. Finding the third respondent not qualified and not competent, research students are unwilling to get themselves registered under him. On pressure, one student registered himself under the third respondent for M.Phil, in Criminology. THE second respondent was contemplating confirming the third respondent in the post, Being a public post, the petitioner was entitled to have in the post, one who had the basic qualifications as prescribed by the Statute and Regulations of the University. Appointing persons who were not qualified and who were not eligible for appointment, does great injustice to the future of the students. THE appointment of the third respondent had to be quashed and writ of quo warranto issued against him. Respondents 1 and 2 had to be restrained from confirming the third respondent in the post and also from assigning research students of Criminology to the third respondent.