Dr.P.David Jawahar v. The Vice Chancellor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:21.11.2012CoramTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P. No.24832 of 2012andM.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012Dr.P.David Jawahar... Petitioner vs.

The Vice Chancellor, University of Madras, Chennai-600 0052.University of Madras rep.by its Registrar i/c, Chennai-600 005... RespondentsPetitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking for issue of writ of mandamus forbearing the first respondent from in any way proceeding with the appointment to the post of Registrar of Madras University in pursuance to the short-listing of the candidates. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mohideen BashaFor Respondents : Ms.G.Thilagavathy ORDERThe petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Registrar in the University of Madras. He has also made an application. But however, on coming to know that the Special committee of University Syndicateis trying to short-list the names and on finding that his name has not been included and the inclusion of T.Leo Alexander's name, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to appoint the Registrar of University of Madrasin conformity with the provisions contemplated in Madras UniversityAct, 1923.

When the matter came up on 11.9.2012, this Court granted interim order restraining the Vice Chancellor from making appointment to the post of Registrar. But however it was made clear that the said order will not be an impediment for the Syndicate to make https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointment by following the procedure contemplated under the University Statutes. The said order came to be extended from time to time.

Aggrieved by the grant of interim order, the respondentUniversity has filed a vacate injunction application in M.P.No.2 of2012 with a supporting counter affidavit, sworn to by the second respondent, dated 28.9.2012.

In the counter affidavit it is set out that the qualifications to the post of Registrar was taken out from the provisions of the University Statutes and it is also stated that the University has toadhere to the norms approved by the Syndicate in the matter of selection to the post of Registrar.

The Selection Committee for the post of Registrar will comprise of the Vice-Chancellore(Chairman), Nominee of the Chancellore of the University of Madras, Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, One FormerVice-Chancellore, One sitting Vice-Chancellor, One Management expert from professional Management Institute/Public Sector Undertaking or former Registrar of a reputed University. Applications were called for, pursuant to the notice issued by the University and it was directed to be placed before the Scrutiny Committee.

It is also stated that the Scrutiny Committee is not astatutory committee and only to assist the Selection Committee, the Scrutiny Committee has been nominated. The petitioner has not satisfied the eligibility norms.

The only question to be decided is as to whether such a writ petition is maintainable.

In the present case, the petitioner being an applicant for the post of Registrar and has not been recommended by the SelectionCommittee, as and when any appointment is made, it is always open to him to challenge that the said appointment is not in conformity with the University Statutes. It is no use in stating that the Universityshould adhere to the provisions of the Act and Statutes thereunderand the Court cannot state the obvious provision and direct the authority to act within four corners of the Act and one need not reemphasise the same at each and every stage, as it is always open to him to challenge the selection order, if any, passed by the University.

However, Mr.Mohideen Basha, the learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the intention of the petitioner to file the writ petition was that at the relevant time the first respondent was having his own candidate, who has been accused of serious commissions and omissions and therefore, the present writ petition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ came to be filed.

This Court, without going into the said allegation makes it clear that the term of the first respondent have already come to the end and as per the orders of the Government, a five member committee has been appointed to take charge of the University and it is headed by the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department. Therefore, it is unnecessary to direct the committee that they shouldgo by the Act before making appointment.