Associate Professor sought promotion to Professor under AICTE Regulations 2012, contending his API scores were wrongly assessed. The court found selection depended on both API scores and interview performance, and the petitioner failed both benchmarks; the writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.23411 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 12.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
W.P.No.23411 of 2015 &
M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015
Dr. S.Palanivel
...petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal, Pondicherry Engineering College, Pondicherry.
2.The Member Secretary, Pondicherry Engineering College, Pondicherry – 605 014.
3.The Chairman Pondicherry Engineering College, Pondicherry – 605 014.
4.The Secretary to Education, Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry.
5.All India Council for Technical Education, Represented by its Member Secretary, 7th Floor, Chanderlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. ...Respondents
1/12
W.P.No.23411 of 2015
Prayer:
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned minutes of Staff (Teaching) Selection Committee Meeting held on 31.10.2014 and quash the same in so far as rejecting the application dated 29.01.2014 of the petitioner as illegal and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to promote the petitioner to the next level of stage – 5 viz., Professor (Civil Engineering Department) with effect from 10.02.2014 as per AICTE Regulations 2012, together with back wages and other service benefits to which the petitioner is entitled for.
: For petitioner Mr. R.Gopinath M/s. Mcgan Law Firm For Respondents : Mr. Syed Mustafa 1 to 4 Special Government Pleader For Respondent 5: No Appearance.
O R D E R
The above Writ Petition has been filed for issue of certiorarified
mandamus to quash the minutes of the Staff (Teaching) Selection
2/12
W.P.No.23411 of 2015
Committee Meeting held on 31.10.2014 in so far as it related to the rejection of the application of the petitioner dated 29.01.2014 as illegal and direct respondents 1 to 4 to promote the petitioner to the next level of stage 5, namely, Professor (Civil Engineering Department) with effect from 10.02.2014 as per AICTE Regulations, 2012 with backwages and service benefits.
3/12
W.P.No.23411 of 2015
Grade IV in Structural Engineering Research Centre, CSIR, Chennai on 19.03.1997, where he worked till 25.11.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner had joined the 1st respondent institution. Since the petitioner was eligible for promotion to stage 2, namely, Lecturer (senior scale) considering the fact that he had been an academician since 1993, he had applied for the said promotion. The University Grants Commission (UGC) has already framed guidelines in this regard. Though, the 1st respondent was aware abut these guidelines they did not consider the petitioner for promotion. As they had not considered his services in the reputed institutions earlier, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.45552 of 2002 to direct the 1st respondent to consider his representation. Though this Court by order dated 19.12.2002 had directed the respondents to consider the
4/12
W.P.No.23411 of 2015
representation, the same was not considered and on 05.02.2003, the 1st respondent had passed order stating that there was no provision to count past services and therefore the petitioner could not be considered for promotion to stage 2.
the guidelines framed by the UGC with reference to calculation of past services for granting promotion. In this proceeding, the 5th respondent had stated that they were adopting the guidelines framed by the UGC for counting past services of Teachers of degree level Technical institutions. Therefore, a representation was once again given to the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner to the next stage. Once again
the 1st respondent by order dated 23.03.2004 declined to promote the petitioner.
5/12
W.P.No.23411 of 2015
W.P.No.10049 of 2004 challenging the order dated 23.03.2004. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent without considering the previous service promoted the petitioner to the next stage. This order was passed pending the proceedings in W.P.No.10049 of 2004. Thereafter, this Court in W.P.No.10049 of 2004 by order dated 26.11.2009 had set aside the impugned order dated 23.03.2004 and directed the 1st respondent to grant the petitioner the benefit of the career advancement scheme.
6/12
W.P.No.23411 of 2015
7/12
W.P.No.23411 of 2015
scrutinising these documents, he found that API scores were deliberately not awarded. The petitioner would submit that on the verification of API score sheet, he found that for Categories I and II the score awarded was less than what he was actually entitled to. That apart, his juniors had been promoted. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the above Writ Petition stating that the guidelines framed by the UGC had not been followed.
8/12
W.P.No.23411 of 2015
Therefore, no exception can be taken to the above.
candidature had been rejected on the ground of his having poor API score which was the only criteria that had to be taken into consideration, however a perusal of the records would show that not only should the API scores be considered but also the scores in the interview.
committee dated 31.10.2014 would clearly show that the petitioner was not selected on account of “Not meeting the minimum API score in category III and interview marks is less than 50” . Therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced since the parameters for promotion was not only the API score but also
9/12
W.P.No.23411 of 2015
the performance at the interview and the marks awarded therein. The petitioner having failed to reach the bench mark cannot seek redressal
from the Court by asking the Court to sit as a Selection Committee.
12.06.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan
To
1.The Principal, Pondicherry Engineering College, Pondicherry.
2.The Member Secretary, Pondicherry Engineering College, Pondicherry – 605 014.
3.The Chairman
Pondicherry Engineering College, Pondicherry – 605 014.
10/12
W.P.No.23411 of 2015
4.The Secretary to Education, Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry.
5.All India Council for Technical Education, Represented by its Member Secretary, 7th Floor, Chanderlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001.
P.T. ASHA, J,
kan
11/12
W.P.No.23411 of 2015
W.P.No. 23411 of 2015
12.06.2024
12/12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether rejection of the petitioner's application for promotion to Professor (stage 5) for not meeting the minimum API score in category III and scoring below 50 in interview could be quashed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. S.Palanivel
The Principal, Pondicherry Engineering College, Pondicherry
The Member Secretary, Pondicherry Engineering College, Pondicherry
The Chairman, Pondicherry Engineering College, Pondicherry
The Secretary to Education, Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry
All India Council for Technical Education
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
