Pondicherry Engineering College, Pillaichavady, Pondicherry v. A. Muthuramalingam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 22.08.2008Coram :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJAWrit Appeals Nos.23 to 25 of 20081. Pondicherry Engineering College, Pillaichavady, Pondicherry,represented by its Principal2. Selection Committee, Pondicherry Engineering College, Puducherry 605 014, representedby its ChairmanAppellants/Respondents 1&2 in all the writ appealsv.1. A.MuthuramalingamRespondent 1 in WA No.23 of 2008 S.HimavathiRespondent 1 in WA No.24 of 2008 B.Rami ReddyRespondent 1 in WA No.25 of 20082. All India Council for TechnicalEducation, represented by itsDeputy Director, Southern Regional Office, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai 6.Respondent 2 inall Writ AppealsWrit Appeals filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the common order of a learned single Judge of this Courtdated 24.09.2007 made in writ petitions Nos.793 to 795 of 2006.Petition filed u/Art 226 of the Constitution of India, issue a Writof Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to theMemorandum made in No.PEC/E.Stt./E1/Rect(T)/2005/No.5666dt.2.12.2005 issued by the Ist Respondent and quash the same anddirect the respondents 1 & 2 to select and appoint the petitionersherein to the post of Professor in the Department of Electricialand Eletronics Engineering on par with the recruitment of professorin other departments under the same faculty recruitment notifiationpublished on 30.6.2005. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For appellants :Mr.R.Natarajan, AdditionalGovernment Pleader (Pondicherry)For Respondent 1:Mr.G.Rajanin all W.As.For Respondent 2:Mr.N.Muralikumaran, ACGSCJUDGMENTK.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.These writ appeals are filed against the common order of theWrit Court in writ petitions Nos.793 to 795 of 2006, whereby theWrit Court directed the appellants herein to select and appoint thewrit petitioners (the first respondents herein) to the post ofProfessors in the Department of Electrical and ElectronicsEngineering ('EEE' for short) on par with the recruitment ofProfessors in other Departments under the same faculty recruitmentNotification published on 30.06.2005. 2. The facts are :- The first respondent in each of theappeals are working as lecturers in EEE department of the appellantcollege, viz., the Pondicherry Engineering College. The saidcollege issued a faculty recruitment notification on 30.06.2005calling for applications for three posts of Professors, two postsof Assistant Professors and one post of Lecturer in the EEEdepartment, among other posts in other faculties. The writpetitioners, being possessed with the qualification prescribed inthe notification, applied for the post of Professors. Pursuant tothe same, they attended the interview on 21.10.2005. The interviewfor the recruitment of other posts also, as called for in thenotification on 30.06.2005, was held on 21.10.2005. Appointmentorders were issued to the candidates, who appeared for the post ofProfessors in other departments, but so far as EEE department, theresults were not published. Hence, the first respondent in each ofthe appeals filed writ petitions No.37273 to 37275 of 2005 seekingfor the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the appellantsherein to select and appoint the writ petitioners to the posts ofProfessor in EEE department by declaring the results of theinterview conducted by the Selection Committee on 21.10.2005 on parwith the other department. While the writ petitions were pending,pursuant to the letters of the writ petitioners dated 28.10.2005,the appellant college through the Principal informed by amemorandum dated 02.12.2005 that the selection committee did notrecommend the writ petitioners for appointment to the posts ofProfessor in EEE department. The writ petitioners again filedanother set of writ petitions in W.Ps. Nos.793 to 795 of 2006challenging the memorandum dated 02.12.2005 and further for adirection to the appellants to select and appoint the writpetitioners to the posts of Professors in the EEE department. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The core contention of the writ petitioners in this case isthat one Vivekanandan, Assistant Professor of CSE department, whodid not possess the requisite qualification as on 15.07.2005, thelast date for submitting the completed application forms, wasissued with an appointment order as Professor in that Department,whereas the writ petitioners, who are fully qualified candidates,were not selected and found not fit for the post of Professor. 4. The writ Court on the view that for the three posts ofProfessors in the EEE department, only three candidates applied;all of them were working as Assistant Professors in the very samecollege and were fully qualified for the post; that except sayingthat the Selection Committee found them not fit to hold the posts,no other reason, whatsoever, has been given by the appellants andno other materials were shown as to how the writ petitioners werefound to be not fit for the posts. On the above reasoning and alsotaking into consideration that one Vivekanandan, who did notpossess the requisite qualification at the time of submitting theapplication, was favoured with appointment in that Department, thewrit Court gave a positive direction to the appellants herein toappoint the writ petitioners as prayed for in the writ petitions.5. On hearing the learned counsel on either side and onperusing the materials available on record, we are not able toapprove the order of the writ Court. 6. It is seen from the notification dated 30.06.2005 that theappellant reserves the right to fill up the posts or alter thenumber of posts or even to cancel the whole process of recruitmentwithout assigning any reason. Just because the writ petitionersare possessed of requisite qualification as required under theNotification and further fact that for the three posts ofProfessors, three candidates have appeared for the interview, ipsofacto, cannot be a reason making them entitled to be appointed asProfessors. It is the objective satisfaction of the selectioncommittee, which is comprised of experts, and that has to decidethe suitability or otherwise of the candidates for the prescribedposts. Either the constitution of the Selection Committee or theprocedure followed by it is questioned by the writ petitioners. So,it can be safely presumed that the Constitution and the procedurefollowed by the Selection Committee is in accordance with thestatutory provision. It is pertinent to note that no statutoryprovision is referred to either before the Writ Court or beforethis Court. 7. Then the next question is, whether the Selection Committeeis obliged to select the three candidates appeared for theinterview because of the co-equal vacancies and possession ofrequisite qualification by them. We are afraid to accept the sameand the only answer of us is an "emphatic no". If the same is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ correct, then there is no need for any interview by the Committee.The very purpose of interview is to assess the performance of thecandidates objectively by the experts, who formed the SelectionCommittee. As the objective criteria is a question of fact in eachcase and no absolute or straight jacket formula could be laid down,due consideration should be given to the views expressed by theSelection Committee in the affairs of the administration ofselection of teachers or professors. The competence and merit ofthe candidate could be judged not on the basis of the qualificationthe candidate possessed, but by other necessary factors such asperformance of the candidate throughout their career, experience inthe field on which the selection is going to be held and above all,the general aptitude and personality of the candidate for the post,which can be evaluated and decided only by the Experts Committee,particularly in educational matters, who have the expertise on thesubject. The Court cannot substitute the view of the SelectionCommittee. 8. The only limited ground on which the Court can interferewith the selection process is patent material irregularity in theConstitution of the Committee or the procedure adopted by theCommittee or proved malafide. None of the reasons has been statedby the writ petitioners against the Selection Committee. Hence, thewrit Court should not have interfered with the decision arrived atby the Selection Committee.9. It is well settled proposition that no candidate will havea vested right to compel the selection Committee either to completethe process of selection or appoint him or her as he/she possessedthe requisite qualification. Even the candidates, who have beenselected for vacancies in the interview, would not have any rightto be appointed to the post and they are not entitled to seek amandamus to that effect. Useful reference can be had to thejudgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Singh Dalal v.State of Haryana, (1993) Supp (2) SCC 600; State of Haryana v.Subash Chander Marwaha, 1974 (3) SCC 220, and Osmania University v.Abdul Rayees Khan, 1997 (3) SCC 124. 10. The other contention that one Vivekanandan, who did notpossess the requisite qualification at the time of submitting hisapplication for appointment, has been selected for that post,cannot make the writ petitioners entitled for appointment. It iswell settled that there can be no equality in illegality. Benefitsextended to some persons in an illegal or irregular manner cannotbe claimed by others on the plea of equality. Illegalitiescommitted in some other case cannot be held a ground forperpetrating the illegality. The guarantee of equality being apositive concept, cannot be enforced in a negative manner. If anillegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of anindividual or even a group of individuals, others, though falling https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the same category, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the writCourts for enforcement of the same irregularity on the reasoningthat the similar benefit has been denied to them. Any direction forenforcement of such claim shall tantamount to perpetuating anillegality, which cannot be permitted. A claim based on equalityclause has to be just and legal. An order made in favour of aperson in violation of the prescribed procedure cannot form a legalpremise for any other person to claim parity with the said illegalor irregular order. A judicial forum cannot be used to perpetuatethe illegalities. Useful reference can be had to the judgments ofthe Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KERALA VS. K.PRASAD(2007) 7 SCC 140, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION VS.COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, (2006) 4 SCC 65 and STATE OF BIHAR VS.KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, (2000) 9 SCC 94.11. The other contention raised on behalf of the writpetitioners that the suitability or eligibility cannot bedetermined by the Selection Committee and it is only the AICTE,which is the supreme body that could alone decide the suitability,is not also acceptable. The AICTE, as the supreme body, couldprescribe the qualifications only. The power of selection amongthe qualified candidates definitely vests with the selectioncommittee. The writ petitioners have also not questioned theconstitution of the selection committee or the power of theSelection Committee. 12. The Principal of the college, as one of the committeemembers, has filed his counter wherein he has categorically statedthat after going through the educational qualifications, experienceand on the basis of the performance in the personal interview, thecommittee's recommendations was that the three candidates, whoappeared for the interview, were not found fit to the post ofProfessor in the department of EEE. In order to fill up thevacancies in the appellant college in EEE department, a furthernotification calling upon the applications for filling up the postsof Professors, has been issued, which shows the anxiety of thecollege/appellant to fill up the vacancies at the earliest,otherwise, the appellants have to answer the AICTE. It is wellopen to the writ petitioners to prepare themselves well and appearagain before the Selection Committee, if they choose to do so andcome out successfully.13. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners relied on thedecision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.N.Saxena v. NewDelhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1990 SC 2021, wherein the SupremeCourt has held that the person having no diploma qualification, buthaving experience of six years as Senior and Junior Draftsman isentitled to be considered for promotion to the post of HeadDraftsman. We are at a loss to understand as to how that judgmentwould be applicable to the facts of the present case. That was a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case for promotion and the basis for promotion qualifications fixedtherefor. But the case on hand is in respect of direct recruitmentcalling for applications to fill up the posts of Professors in aneducational institution, prescribing the qualifications.14. In view of the reasoning and other propositions of law, weare of the view that the writ Court, by giving a positive directionto appoint the writ petitioners as Professors, while exercisingjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hasvirtually converted the Court into a Selection Committee and passedan order, which is impermissible in law and the same is liable tobe set aside. 15. For the reasons stated above, the order of the learnedsingle Judge has to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.The writ appeals are allowed. No costs. The connectedmiscellaneous petitions are consequently dismissed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrarmf/usk To1. The Deputy Director, All India Council for Technical Education, Southern Regional Office, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai 6.2. The Principal Pondicherry Engineering College, Pillaichavady, Pondicherry,3. The Chairman, Selection Committee, Pondicherry Engineering College, Puducherry 605 014.3 Ccs To The Government Pleader, Pondicherry SR.47135 to 47137+1 cc to Mr.N.Muralikumaran, Advocate, SR.No.47731+3 Ccs to Mr.G.Rajan, Advocate, SR.No.47288 to 47290 Judgment in W.A.Nos.23 to 25 of 2008SSN(CO)SMK/29.8.08