Dr.L.Dravin, Plot NO.11/16 Vs the Vice Chancellor

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records of the first respondent's Selection process for the post of Asst. Professor Veterinary Clinical Medicine Ethics and Jurisprudence on the interview held on 31.01.2012 vide reference No.20822/R.3/2011 dated 18.1.2012 and see the qualification, merits and the marks obtained by the candidates appeared in the interview and by quashing the appointment of the 2^nd respondent as Assistant Professor at Veterinary Clinical Medicine Ethics and Jurisprudence and thereby direct the first respondent to hold a fresh interview for the said post.

¶15

Page 1 of 8

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.6230 of 2012

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Shanmugakani For R1 : Mr.S.Namasivayam For R2 : Mr.D.Sreenivasan

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition has been filed challenging the selection of the 2^nd respondent for the post of Assistant Professor in Veterinary Clinical Medicine Ethics and Jurisprudence in the interview that was held on 31.01.2012 in the 1^st respondent University.

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not awarded

¶22

marks in respect of the publications made by the petitioner and also under the category of extracurricular activities, though he was entitled for the same. It is alleged that the 2^nd respondent herein was awarded marks for experience,

¶23

as well as for publications and medals, etc, though he does not deserve the awarding of such marks, as he had no experience, etc. The allegations made

¶24

in the affidavit are as vague as they can be. No specific allegations is made. However, the case of the petitioner was improved by filing a reply affidavit.

¶25

Yet another ground that is urged before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the selection committee that was constituted for the

¶26

Page 2 of 8

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.6230 of 2012

¶29

purpose of filling up the post of Assistant Professor in question was also not properly constituted, and the same is also stated to have been admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed before this Court.

¶30

This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, called for the original records pertaining to the selection in question and perused the same.

¶31

On perusal of the same, it is noticed that the petitioner herein

¶32

was awarded 0.5 marks for extracurricular activities and 2.5 marks for publications. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the petitioner would be entitled for 4 marks for extracurricular activities as against the 0.5 marks and 4 marks for publications as against the 2.5 marks already awarded in his favour.

¶33

If that be the case, the total marks that would have been secured by the petitioner in the selection process would go up by 5 marks. If 5 marks is added to the total marks secured by the petitioner, the total would go up 45.60. As against the same, the 2^nd respondent herein secured 67.40 marks in

¶34

Page 3 of 8

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.6230 of 2012

¶37

all. Thus, even if the marks as claimed by the petitioner were added also, the petitioner would not be reaching the marks obtained by the 2^nd respondent herein.

¶38

Then, coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent herein was awarded marks for experience, though he does not possess any experience, and also contested in respect of the marks awarded in favour of the 2^nd respondent under the category of publications and extracurricular activities, this Court is not inclined to go into the said aspect, for the reason that no material is placed before this Court by the petitioner to show that the awarding of marks in favour of the 2^nd respondent is arbitrary and without any basis, especially in the absence of specific and categorical averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In case, if any such specific allegations are made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the 2^nd respondent or 1^st respondent would have answered all such allegations in the counter affidavit. But no specific allegations are made and on the other hand, the allegations are all vague and general in nature.

¶39

Page 4 of 8

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.6230 of 2012

¶42

Be that as it may, even if the marks awarded in favour of the 2^nd

¶43

respondent are found to be erroneous, the petitioner herein cannot be granted the relief of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in question, as there are other candidates who have secured more marks than the petitioner herein. For instance, the person shown at Serial Nos.3, 5 & 7 secured 52.20, 54.10 and 50.85 marks respectively. In view of the same, even if the selection of the 2^nd respondent is found to be erroneous, the petitioner cannot be granted the relief of appointment to the post in question.

¶44

Then, coming to the issue of constitution of selection committee, no doubt, in the counter affidavit the 1^st respondent has stated that the selection committee would consist of Dean of the Faculty, University Officer concerned, Head of the Department concerned, Head of the Department of the Allied subject and the appointing authority of the selection committee is the Vice-Chancellor. The selection committee now who has conducted the selection process consist of Vice-Chancellor and other members.

¶45

Page 5 of 8

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.P.No.6230 of 2012

¶48

A perusal of the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Science

¶49

University Regulations would disclose that the selection committee for the

¶50

purpose of selection of the Assistant Professor would consist of Vice Chancellor and other members. Therefore, in the instant case, the Vice Chancellor acted as Chairman of the selection committee and other members were also nominated in terms of the regulations referred to above. Though it is contended otherwise in the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent, in light of the regulations placed before this Court, this Court is unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the constitution of the selection committee is illegal.

¶51

As this Court has come to the conclusion that no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the appointment of the 2^nd respondent herein that too at this length of time.

¶52