CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. Union of India

6.S.Loganathan, Registrar, Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry-605 014. ... Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus to call for the records on the file of the fifth respondentin connection with the order passed by him in his proceedingsNo.A/23456/GS/DIR/CAO/A-7(A) dated 06.05.2010 and proceedingsNo.A/23456/GS/DIR/CAO/A-7(A) dated 17.06.2010 and also the order ofthe fourth respondent bearing No.PU/Estt/NT10/2010-11/48 dated21.05.2010 including the resolution of the third respondent bearingNo.2010.103.47 and quash the same and direct the respondents toconduct direct recruitment for appointment to the post of Registrarof the third respondent viz. Pondicherry University and to considerthe petitioner for such recruitment.For Petitioner:Mr.R.Singgaravelan For Respondents :Mr.Sy.Masood for R1 & R5 :Mr.P.R.Gopinathan for R2 :Mr.R.Viduthalai, Senior Counsel for Mrs.A.V.Bharathy for R3, R4 & R6 ORDERThe petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the 5threspondent dated 6.5.2010 and 7.6.2010 and the order of the 4threspondent dated 21.5.2010 by which the 6th respondent waspermanently absorbed in the 4th respondent University in the post ofRegistrar.2.The case of the petitioner is that, he is a senior mosteligible candidate to be considered for the post of Registrar ofthe third respondent University. He is qualified M.E Electronicswith 17 years of service in the 3rd respondent University in thepost of Technical Officer Grade-II. The post of Registrar isrequired to be filled up through direct recruitment as per the orderof the Government of India dated 31.12.2008 and not by any othermodes. Though there are Central Government guidelines for dealing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with the appointment by way of deputation, there is no provisions inthe procedure of University Act 2005 for appointment by way ofdeputation. 3.The facts, leading to the case are as follows:For appointment of Registrar post, advertisement was made inthe year 2004 for direct recruitment in the scale of pay ofRs.16400-Rs.22400/-. The minimum qualification prescribed for thepost was that a Master degree with at least 55% of marks or itsequivalent grade of "B" in the UGC seven point scale. At least 15years of experience as Lecturer (Senior scale), Lecturer with 8years in Reader Grade along with experience in educationaladministration(or) Comparable experience in research establishmentand /or other institution of higher education (or) 15 years ofadministrative experience of which 8 years as Deputy Registrar orequivalent post. As per advertisement, the tenure of the post ofRegistrar was five years and the age of retirement was 62 years.4.The 6th respondent who was working as Director (ESTT)II asNational Technical Research Organisation, was appointed on17.10.2005 and joined duty on 19.10.2005. The said appointment isbased on the deputation basis. The tenure came to an end on19.4.2010 and he was subsequently absorbed on 20.4.2010 by renewaltill he attains 62 years on 28.2.2013. The aforesaidappointment/absorption and the resolution of the third respondentUniversity, which enable the 6th respondent to get absorbed in thethird respondent university, is being challenged before this Court.5.Mr.R.Singgaravelan, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner would submit the following:a)The advertisement speaks about appointment direct recruitmentand not by deputation. There is no provision in the PondicherryUniversity statue for appointment through deputation. Therefore,the initial appointment of the 6th respondent dated 17.10.2005 itselfis illegal;b) For the post of Registrar in the University as peradvertisement, candidates should have 15 years of experience asLecturer with experience and educational qualification. Whereas, thework of the sixth respondent who worked in the National ResearchOrganisation as Director is only administrative in nature andtherefore, the sixth respondent does not possess the minimumqualification.c)When the sixth respondent was absorbed, there was noadvertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and thesixth respondent alone was considered for the rest of the periodwithout offering chance to other eligible candidates. Therefore, thesaid absorption is illegal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ d)The respondents 3 to 5 with mala fide intention amended therules so as to enable the sixth respondent to retain the post ofRegistrar till he attains the age of 62. e)The advertisement did not speak about the deputation in 2005and the deputation Clause did not find place in the advertisementand therefore the sixth respondent cannot be appointed initially ondeputation and later absorbed.f)Even assuming without admitting that the third respondent hasauthority in law to switch over to the mode of deputation and thereis a provision authorising him, equal opportunity should have beengiven to all the eligible candidates in all the Central GovernmentDepartments including the 6th respondents department to take part inthe selection by deputation. But admittedly such an opportunity wasnot given. g)When the absorption was not available at the time of initialappointment of the sixth respondent, there could not be absorptionin 2010 and it was done based on the resolution dated 9.3.2007,amending Section 4(i) (A) of University Act.h) Amendment introducing the absorption was made on 20.03.2007which is very well after the advertisement dated 14.9.2004, with aview to absorb the 6th respondent and hence the absorption of the6th respondent is illegal. i) Even though the petitioner did not apply for the initialappointment in 2005, he is well qualified initially as well as atthe time of absorption of the 6th respondent as the petitioner wasserving as Technical Officer which is equal to Reader.j) There is no latches on the part of the petitioner as thepetitioner only questioned the absorption of the 6th respondent dated19.4.2010 and for which the concurrence of the parent department wasgiven only on 06.05.2010.k)When the sixth respondent attained superannuation on13.2.2010, his service could not have been extended beyond thatperiod. Whereas, the 6th respondent's service period would be overonly in 2013. Therefore, the absorption was done contrary to theprovisions, which were in existence in 2010 and there cannot be anyretrospective absorption. The period of deputation was over on19.4.2010 and the concurrence for absorption was given only on06.5.2010 by parent department of the 6th respondent. Thus theabsorption made on 19.04.2010 is illegal as on 19.04.2010 as therewas no concurrence of his parent department. l)As per the recruitment rule for absorption UPSCconsultation is necessary. The minimum age for deputation forabsorption is 56 years. Whereas, the 6th respondent was aged about 59½ years in 2010. Therefore, the appointment on deputation in 2005and absorption in 2010 are contrary to the rules and the same isillegal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.Mr.R.Singgaravelan relied upon the following judgements:1)Minor A.Peeriakaruppan and Sobha Joseph vs. State of TamilNadu and Ors. reported in (1971) 1 SCC 382)Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. vs. The Chief ElectionCommissioner, New Delhi and Ors. reported in (1978) 1 SCC 4053)Miss, Nishi Maghu and Ors. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir andOrs. reported in (1980) 4 SCC 954)Upen Chandra Gogai vs. State of Assam & Ors. Reported in(1998) 3 SCC 3815)Dr.Bhanu Prasad Panda vs. The Chancellor, SambalpurUniversity and ors. reported in 2001(8)SCC 5326)P.Mohanan Pillai vs. State of Kerala and Ors. Reported in(2007)9 SCC 4977)Collector of Central Excise, Baroda vs. Ojas Corporationreported in (1995) 3 SCC 399 -- Paragraphs 15,16-238)Bimiesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana and Ors. Reported in(2003)5 SCC 604 – Paragraphs 49 to 529)The Deputy Inspector General of Police and the DirectorGeneral of Police vs. V.Rani reported in (2011) 3 CTC 129 FB 13110)Pramod Kumar vs. U.P.Secondary Education Services Commissionand Ors. reported in (2008) 7 SCC 15311)State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mohd. Ibrahim (2009) 15 SCC 21412)Dr.M.S.Patil vs. Gulbarga University and Ors. Reported in(2010) 10 SCC 63 In fine he submitted that the appointment of 6th respondent should beset aside and the writ petition is to be allowed.7.Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for therespondents 3,4 and 6 made the following submissions: a) Petitioner was not one of the 75 applicants applied for thepost of Registrar in 2005 and therefore, he has got neitherqualification nor locus standi to question the 6th respondent'sappointment. b) In service law Public Interest Litigation is notmaintainable, as the petitioner's writ petition is in the nature ofpublic interest litigation. Therefore it is liable to be dismissed. c) The appointment of sixth respondent to the post ofRegistrar is by direct recruitment and not by way of deputation. d) Renewal of tenure of the sixth respondent as Registrar isin accordance with rule 4(i)(A) of the Ordinance and it is based onrelevant records and materials.e) The formality of deputation and absorption are inter-searrangement made between the Central Government and the thirdrespondent University.f) The appointment on absorption of the 6th respondent isaccording to law and as per rules, which are in existence.g) The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ latches as the writ petitioner materially challenges the initialappointment of 6th respondent. He relied upon the judgement of theHon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1993 (4) SCC 119 (1993 RK JAIN Vs.Union of India)h) Following the procedure, the 6th respondent was selected andappointed by direct recruitment. After appointment by directrecruitment, the appointments were finalised between the governmentand Pondicherry University. Therefore, it is clear that the 6threspondent was appointed by direct recruitment and not bydeputation. The parent department relieved the petitioner ondeputation and it does not mean that the sixth respondent was notappointed by way of direct recruitment. He relied upon JonshanBregesh Gupta and others Cham Kendra Vidhalaya reported in 2006 (2)JCR 46. i)The 3rd respondent by resolution dated 1.4.2010 resolved torenew the terms of appointment of the 6th respondent as Registrar fora further period up to the date of superannuation or attaining theage of 62 on absorption basis and the said decision was taken as perthe provisions contained in statue 19(i) note (3) and rule 4(i)A ofOrdinance (Administration) governing the employment and the termsand conditions of service of the Registrar under the Statute underSection 4(2). j)As the third respondent sought his absorption, the 6threspondent gave his willingness for absorption and his parentdepartment also approved his absorption. As per note 3 of thestatute 19 Registrars can be appointed for five years which periodcan be renewed in similar terms. Thus the 6th respondent is eligiblefor similar terms with effect from 19.12.2010 till he completes 62years on 22.8.2013. Hence, there is no violation in the sixthrespondent's absorption. k)The absorption of the 6th respondent was made because of hisremarkable performance and his contribution in the growth anddevelopment of the third respondent university during his initialtenure.l)Technical resignation is provided in the rules which wouldenable the government servants to apply for the post in the otherdepartments through proper channel and for providing the benefit bytransfer of past service of the servant. There is nothing irregularin the case of technical resignation and it is only a technicalformality as per the Government of India Rules facilitating thetransfer of service and the benefits in case of absorption of theserving Government employee form one job to another in theGovernment or Government autonomous Organisation. Therefore, the 5threspondent's order dated 17.6.2010 is lawful and is based on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government rules and as per the provisions contained in theUniversity Act and statute and Ordinance. In view of that only pastservices and benefits of the 6th respondent were transferred toPondicherry University as per rules. In the case of deputation, thebenefits are paid by the borrowing department to the parentdepartment. Whereas, in case of absorption, initial benefits for theperiod prior to the date of absorption are to be paid by the parentdepartment to the borrowing department. The similar issue has beendealt with by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Rameshchandvs. Union of India.m) The petitioner is guilty of latches as he failed tochallenge the initial appointment made in 2005 and therefore, hecannot maintain this writ petition. He relied upon a Division Benchjudgment of this Court in Soma Velandi -Vs- Dr. Anthony Elangovanand two others reported in 2010 (4) CTC 8 and The Secretary toGovernment, Chennai-9 and others -Vs-. A.Easupra Murthi and othersreported in 2011 (1) CWC 392. In fine, he submitted that thepetitioner neither has locus standi nor a aggrieved person. He isonly a stranger, who is guilty of latches.8.Heard the parties and perused the records carefully.9.The post of Registrar of the third respondent Universitywas advertised in the year 2004 under Direct Recruitment. The saidfact is admitted in paragraph '5' of the counter affidavit filed bythe respondents 3 and 4. A perusal of the notification indicatesthat the recruitment is by direct recruitment. The minimumqualification for the said post is as follows:"REGISTRAR: A Master's degree with at least55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of “B” inthe UGC seven point scale. Atleast 15 years ofexperience as Lecturer (Senior Scale) Lecturer with 8years in Reader's grade along with experience inEducational Administration (OR) Comparable experiencein research establishment and/or other institutionsof higher education (OR) 15 years of administrativeexperience of which 8 years as Deputy Registrar or anequivalent post." Taking into consideration of the above qualifications the issues aredealt with hereunder:I.ELIGIBILITY TO THE POST:10.It is the contention of the petitioner that the sixthrespondent is not qualified for appointment to the post of Registraras he did not hold any post as contemplated in advertisement. Theminimum qualifications prescribed in the advertisement specificallystates that 15 years of experience as Lecturers. The experience in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ educational administration or comparable experience in researchestablishment or other Institution or higher education or 15 yearsof administrative experience of which 8 years of Deputy Registrar orequivalent posts is basic requirement. The sixth respondent neitherserved as Deputy Registrar or equivalent posts in any University norheld any of the above mentioned post. 11.Moreover, the sixth respondent was a Director in NationalTechnical Research Organisation which is not connected withteaching profession or teaching institution. The third respondentas educational University is conducting courses and impartingeducation. Therefore, the teaching experience is essential andnecessary. The sixth respondent only served in the first respondentwhich is not connected to teaching profession. In view of that, thesixth respondent is not qualified to the post of Registrar and thisCourt accepts the contention of the petitioner.12.The sixth respondent is not qualified to be appointed asthe Registrar of third respondent University, not only as per theNotification issued by the said University to the post but also asper the terms and conditions prescribed by the UGC in the AppendixIII to its notification minimum qualifications for appointment ofTeachers in Universities and Colleges and other measures for themaintenance of standards 1998. As per the said notification theminimum qualifications for direct recruitment for the post ofRegistrar are prescribed as follows:"REGISTRAR AND EQUIVALENT POSTS":1) A Master's Degree with at least 55% of the marks or itsequivalent Grade of 'B' in the UGC seven point scale.2) At least 15 years of experience as Lecturer (Sr.Scale)/Lecturer with eight years in Reader's Grade along with experience ineducational administration.ORComparable experience in research establishment and/or otherinstitutions of higher educationOR15 years of administrative experience of which 8 years asDeputy Registrar or an equivalent post"From the above provision it is clear that the sixth respondent hasnot satisfied either the qualifications prescribed by the UGC or bythe third respondent in its notification dated 14.09.2004. In viewof the above, the sixth respondent's initial appointment in 2004itself is illegal and contrary to rules and notification. It iswell settled law that if an order of appointment is bad in itsinception, it does not get legalised at a later stage. In PramodKumar -Vs- U.P, Secondary Education Services Commission and othersreported in 2008 (7)SCC 153, the Honourable Apex Court dealt withthe issue as to whether a person lacking eligibility can be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointed and if so, whether such irregularity/ illegality can becured. After examining the provisions of the U.P.Secondary EducationService Commission Rules, 1983 and the U.P. Intermediate EducationAct, 1921, Supreme Court categorically held that the lack ofeligibility qualifications as per the Rules or Advertisement can notbe cured at any stage and the appointment of such a person has to bedeclared as illegal and not irregular and thus can not be cured.Similar view is taken in Upen Chandra Gogoi -Vs- State of Assam andOthers reported in 1998(3)SCC 381, M.S.Patil (Dr) -Vs- GulbargaUniversity and others reported in 2010 (10) SCC 63, State of Orissaand another -Vs- Mamata Mohanty reported in 2011 (3) SCC 436.II.SELECTION BY DIRECT RECRUITMENT:13.It is the contention of the respondents in paragraphs 5and 7 of the counter affidavit, that it is the selection by directrecruitment through open advertisement. Para 5 of the 6th respondentcounter affidavit and para 7 of the counter affidavit filed by theR3 and R4 reads as follows:"Para '7' & '8' of the Counter affidavit of R3 & R4: 7.I state that it may be seen from the abovethat the sixth respondent was selected by DirectRecruitment through an open advertisement on allIndia basis, and while finalizing the terms andconditions of his appointment/service in PondicherryUniversity, his posting was considered on deputationbasis. The 6th respondent fulfilled all theeligibility conditions prescribed for appointmentunder the relevant provisions of the PondicherryUniversity Act and Statutes for the post of Registrarand there is nothing illegal or arbitrary in hisappointment.8.I state that the respondent University videletter No.PU/VC/2010/1231 dated 21.01.2010 requestedthe Ministry of Defence (his parent organisation) toextend his deputation upto October 2010 in view ofwork exigencies. But since their concurrence was notforthcoming, the matter was taken to ExecutiveCouncil for consideration with the following twooptions:The post of the Registrar may be advertised (or)The tenure of appointment of 6th respondent, thepresent incumbent may be renewed on absorption basisfor a period of five years or till he attains the ageof 62, whichever is earlier. He will attain 62 yearson 28.02.2013. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Executive Council vide Resolution 2010.103.47,dated 01.04.2010 resolved to renew the terms ofappointment of 6th respondent as Registrar for afurther period up to the date of his superannuationon attaining the age of 62, on absorption basis."Para '5' of the Counter affidavit of R6:I statethat as per statute 19(Note-3),the Registrar shallbe appointed on tenure basis for a period of 5years and his tenure may be renewed for similarterms by the Executive Council. I was appointed tothe post of Registrar initially on deputation basisas agreed to by my parent department viz. Ministryof Defence, Government of India. My terms wasrenewed for a further period of two years and 10months (upto 28.02.2013) on absorption basis, inconsultation with my parent department."When the selection was by direct recruitment, the sixth respondent'sposting cannot be considered on deputation basis as contended by therespondents. There is no provision in the advertisement regardingappointment by Deputation. Once, he has been appointed throughDirect Recruitment, his appointment cannot be considered onDeputation basis. There is no explanation in the counter affidavitas to why the sixth respondent was considered on Deputation. Hence,it is clear that after issuing notification for appointment to thepost of Registrar by direct recruitment, the third respondentswitched over to the mode of deputation for the sake of 6threspondent without even issuing fresh advertisement and invitingapplications from the eligible candidates from departments forappointment to the post of Registrar by way of deputation. It hasbeen held by the Supreme Court that even temporary or ad hocappointment cannot be made to a public post without anyadvertisement extending opportunity to all eligible candidates. TheHonourable Apex Court in State of Orissa -Vs- Momatha Mohantireported in 2011 (3)SCC 436 held that it is mandatory on the part ofthe employer to invite applications from all eligible candidatesfrom the open market by advertising the vacancies in newspapers. 14. By letter dated 17th October 2005, the third respondentUniversity requested the fifth respondent to relieve the sixthrespondent initially on deputation as an interim measure only. Evenassuming for a moment, that it is on a deputation basis, it cannotbe for full five years. 15. That apart, Clause-IV of ordinances governing theadministrative matters, speaks about following four methods:METHODS OF RECRUITMENT:(i) by direct recruitment or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii)by promotion or(iii)by transfer or(iv)by deputation from Government Departments and otherinstitutionsThe recruitment can be either by direct recruitment or by promotionor by transfer or by deputation. Each method is distinct andseparate. Therefore, the fourth respondent's appointment cannot beeither through direct recruitment or deputation as contended by therespondents 3 to 6. In view of that also, the stand of therespondents that the sixth respondent was appointed by directrecruitment and deputation is liable to be rejected. Though,initially the sixth respondent was appointed by direct recruitmentwhich is not made clear by the respondents as to how the appointmentwas made on deputation. If such a method is adopted the unilateralconversion from direct recruitment into a deputation, is un-known tolaw which is nothing but colourable exercise of power and contraryto the advertisement.16. As per Government of India, O.M. on the maximum age limitfor deputation as stated in Chapter-19 of "Swamy's Establishment andAdministration", the tenure of the petitioner shall be subject tomaximum of three years. In cases where the extention is necessaryin public interest, the Administrative Minister may grant extensionup to one year and it may extend for the fifth year also only inexceptional circumstances. No such exceptional circumstance hasbeen stated by the respondents. First of all, the sixthrespondent's appointment by deputation for five years at the initialstage itself is contrary to Government of India O.Ms. Even, theMinistry of Human Resources Development Department of HigherEducation by its letter dated 31.12.2008 specifically stated thatthe posts of Registrar/Finance Officer/Controller of Examinationsshall continue to be filled up through direct recruitment. When suchis the position, the sixth respondent's appointment on deputationbasis, is contrary to the said letter also.17. In paragraph '6' of the counter affidavit of therespondents 3 and 4, it is stated that by conducting interview on17.09.2005, the sixth respondent was selected. It is well settledlaw that the oral interview alone cannot be basis for selection andappointment for a public post. Even on that score also, the sixthrespondent's appointment is not valid.18.Assuming that the sixth respondent has got qualificationto be appointed as Registrar, he cannot be appointed by way ofdirect recruitment unless he resigned his earlier post. As contendedby the respondents 3 to 6, he cannot have lien over his parentDepartment and carry the experience and service benefits. Due tothe deputation for five years, the sixth respondent continues to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have hold over the post in parent Department and the same can not befilled up, affecting various juniors and also prospective candidateswhich go against the public interest.ABSORBTION: 19.Initially, the sixth respondent was appointed on17.10.2005 with effect from 19.10.2005 for a period of five yearsand the period ended on 19.04.2010. By a letter dated 21.01.2010the third respondent University requested the fifth respondent togive permission to retain the sixth respondent till October 2010.As per the Government O.M, consultation with the UPSC is necessaryin all cases of appointment by “absorption” to Group 'A' and Group'B' posts, with a view to have a uniform approach. Where theabsorption has been provided in the Rules subsequent to theselection of a person on Deputation, the Ministries/Departmentsshould re-circulate the post, clearly indicating “Absorption” as amode of recruitment and then only, make a reference to theCommission. Such circulation is also necessary in the othercategory of cases if the original circular letter calling fornomination for deputation did not clearly mention the possibility ofpermanent absorption. 20.In view of the celebration of Silver Jubilee function of theUniversity in which the Honourable Prime Minister was likely tovisit the University for inauguration of some buildings in October2010, the third respondent University only sought to retain thesixth respondent till October 2010 only. It is not understandableas to how the resolution was passed in the Executive Council of thesixth respondent on 01.04.2010 and the sixth respondent'sappointment was renewed for further period up to the date of hissuperannuation or attaining the age of '62' years on absorptionbasis. No reason has been given as to why his tenure for a periodof five years was renewed or till he attained the age of '62' yearswhichever is earlier, especially third respondent sought retentionof 6th respondent till October 2010 only. 21. When the University has two options to advertise for thepost of Registrar or to extend the tenure of sixth respondent, itshould have been judicious and fair to make appointment by makingadvertisement. Absorption of the sixth respondent for furtherperiod of five years without any competition or invitingapplications from other candidates is also against the law. Neitherreasons nor extraordinary reasons have been stated by the thirdrespondent in its resolution as to why his tenure was extended.22.Merely because, Pondicherry University Statutes 19(1)Note3, contemplates renewal for similar terms by the Executive Council,it does not mean that the renewal can be made without any reasons https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and basis. Though in the counter affidavit in paragraphs '28 and 29it is stated about the alleged contribution of the sixth respondentto the third respondent for his renewal, no such reason has beengiven in the minutes of the Executive Council Meeting. Therefore,the alleged contribution of the sixth respondent cannot be pleadedin the counter affidavit for the first time in the counter. It iswell settled law that orders cannot be improved by way of subsequentaffidavits as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mohinder SinghGill and another -Vs- The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi andOthers reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405. Therefore, the renewal of thetenure of the sixth respondent is also contrary to the law. 23.The proceedings of the Executive Council is bad for non-application of mind and no material was available for gettingrenewal of the tenure of the sixth respondent. Moreover, theabsorption is unknown to higher posts. By renewal, the thirdrespondent ignored the claims of the prospective applicants whocould have applied to the posts in a case of selection by directrecruitment.24.It is contended by the respondents that the petitionerlacks qualification and he is not one of the 75 applicants appliedfor the said post. Since the petitioner did not file anyapplication, he has got no locus standi. The respondents relied uponthe judgment in R.K.Jain -Vs- Union of India reported in 1993 (4)SCC 119. As on the date of absorption in 2010, the petitioner wasqualified as he was selected for appointment to the post ofTechnical Officer Grade -II in Science Instrumentation Centre and hewas then directed to look after the maintenance work of ElectricalWing with immediate effect, apart from his appointment as Head forUSIC. The Technical Officers of the USIC are entitled to the samebenefits of Pay Scales as available to the Teaching Staff of theUniversity. Therefore, the post of Technical Officer -II isequivalent to the post of Reader. As the Technical Officer -IIPosts which the petitioner held is equivalent to the post of Reader,he is entitled to be considered for appointment to the post ofRegistrar. It is clear that the petitioner has been serving asTechnical Officer-II for nearly 17 years and head of the Centre forsix years. Therefore, he is also qualified to apply for the post ofRegistrar even in 2005. Assuming for a moment that he did not havethe qualification initially in 2005, he acquired the qualificationin 2010. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to challenge the renewalof the appointment of the sixth respondent by absorption done in2010 and laches cannot be employed against the petitioner. Theabsorption made in 2010 is definitely a separate cause of actionand in that event, there is no latches on the part of thepetitioner. Therefore, the judgments cited by the respondents arenot applicable to the facts of the case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25.Though it is contended by the respondents that theformalities of deputation or absorption is inter-se arrangementsbetween the University and the Central Government, the same cannotbe in violation of rights other candidates. The respondents cannotrenew the term of the sixth respondent by absorption withoutoffering the post in open competition. It can not be contended thatthe renewal of second term is automatic subject to the satisfactionof the performance. As already stated nothing has been mentioned inthe Executive Council Meeting about the subjective satisfaction andonly point which was made, is about the visit of the HonourablePrime Minister during Silver Jubilee Celebration. Moreover, theUniversity itself had sought for retention of the sixth respondentonly up to October 2010. When that is the position, the thirdrespondent University for the reasons best known to it, renewed 6threspondent's tenure for a further period of five years or till hissuperannuation, which is contrary to the law.26.As held in the judgement of R.K.Jain -Vs- Union of Indiareported in 1993 4 SCC 119 and in the judgment of Soma Velandi -Vs-Dr.Anthony Elangovan and two others reported in 2010 (4) CTC 8, eventhird party has got no locus standi. However, the petitioner cannotbe termed as third party as he rightly approached the Courtchallenging the absorption of the sixth respondent in the year 2010,when he has qualification.AMENDMENT:- 27.There is already a provision in the Statue regarding theappointment to the post of Registrar. It is argued that byamendment, the third respondent has got power to absorb the sixthrespondent. The absorption has been introduced only to help thesixth respondent as a mode of recruitment without authority. Forabsorption UPSC consultancy is necessary. Where as no suchconsultation was stated to be done in this case. Therefore, theabsorption is illegal. 28.In view of the reasons stated above, it is held by thisCourt that:I)a)The sixth respondent has got no qualification to getappointment as Registrar of the third respondent University for lackof qualification in 2004 itself.b)There was no advertisement for appointment by deputation andthe advertisement dated 14.09.2004 invited application only fordirect recruitment. (c)Appointment by direct recruitment and deputation basis iscontrary to law and therefore sixth respondent's initial appointmentitself is illegal.d)Even if the deputation is valid, it cannot be more than threeyears. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ e)As the initial appointment of 6th respondent itself is bad inlaw, his subsequent absorption is also bad in law. II) The sixth respondent lacks basic eligibility conditions forappointment Notification dated 14.09.2004 and Appendix III to theUGC notification on revision of pay scales, minimum qualificationfor appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges and othermeasures for the maintenance of Standards 1998. III) The petitioner is qualified to apply for the post in 2010.IV) The petitioner has got locus standi to question thepetitioner's absorption which was made in 2010.(V) The absorption without advertisement or without offering toothers, is contrary to law. The absorption has been made with malafide motive to benefit only the sixth respondent violating therights of others.(VI) The selection was made on the basis of interview only asadmitted in counter affidavit of the third respondent and the sameis contrary to law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court.(VII) There is no material in the Executive Council's Minutesas to why the sixth respondent's tenure was renewed for a furtherperiod of five years in 2010, especially the third respondent soughtto retain the sixth respondent by its letter dated 21.01.2010 tillOctober 2010 only. Therefore, the decision of the Executive Councilof the third Respondent is illegal. (VIII) There is no laches on the part of the petitioner ascontended by the petitioner as the writ was filed in timechallenging the 6th respondent's absorption on 19.04.2010.29.For the reasons stated above, this court sets aside theappointment of the sixth respondent to the post of Registrar of thethird respondent by quashing the order of the fifth respondent dated06.05.2010 and 07.06.2010 along with the order of the fourthrespondent dated 21.05.2010. Therefore, the third respondent isdirected to issue fresh notification for appointment of Registrar byadvertisement inviting applications from the prospective candidatesand complete the selection process within two months from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order.30.In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No cost. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar.gsr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO1.The Director Union of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions, (Department of Personnel) Training New Delhi-110 001.2.The Secretary University of Grant Commission, UGC, Bahadoor Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002.3.The Vice Chancellor Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry-605 014.4.The Deputy Registrar (Administration) Pondicherry University, Bharat Ratna Dr.B.R.Ambedjar Administrative Buildings, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry-605 014.5.The Deputy Chief Administration Officer(A) O/O The Joint Secretary (Training) & CAO, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, Room No.14, E-Block, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi-110 011. 6.The Registrar, Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry-605 014. 1 cc to Mrs. A.V. Bharathi, Advocate, Sr. 687901 cc to Mr.R. Singaravelan, Advocate, Sr. 689001 cc to Mr.S.Y. Masood, Advocate, Sr. 687931 cc to Mr.P.R. Gopinathan, Advocate, Sr. 69089 W.P.No.4799 of 2011 UG (CO)kk 8/11