Dr.M.Chandra Mohan, Vs the Secretary to Government

6.Udhayakumar 7.The College Committee, A.Veeraiya Vandayar Memorial Sri Pushpam College (Autonomous), Poondi, Thanjavur, Represented by its Secretary. 8.Dr.M.Ramasamy 9.G.Pathy 10.Veeramani 11.Selvam 12.Vijayakumar 13.Selvakumar 14.Chandrasekar 15.D.Ramprasath 16.S.Praba 17.P.Rekha 18.S.Geethalakshmi 19.S.Jothiramalingam 20.G.Vishnuvasanthanaraj 21.S.K.Thiagarajan 22.Karpagasundari 23.G.Devendran 24.Nambirajan 25.Swaminathan 26.Tharageswari

¶24

... Respondents / Respondents

¶25

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act to set aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.22462 of 2018 dated 08.11.2018 and allow this appeal.

¶26

2/11

¶27

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

¶28

W.A(MD)No.1567 of 2018

¶29

For Appellant : Mr.S.K.Mani For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan Government Advocate for R.1 to R.3 Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan for R.4 Mr.S.Venkatesan for R.5 Mr.Issac Mohanlal Senior Counsel for M/s.Issac Chambers for R.7 No Appearance for R.8 to R.13, R.16 to R.23, R.25 & R.26

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

¶32

Dr.M.Chandra Mohan has filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of W.P(MD)No.22462 of 2018 filed by him. In the said writ petition, the appellant questioned the very validity of the recruitment notification dated 17.05.2017 issued by the Management of A.Veeraiya Vandayar Memorial Sri Pushpam College (Autonomous), Thanjavur. Vide the said notification, applications had been invited for filling up the permanent vacancies in the post of Assistant Professor. The recruitment notification reads as follows:

¶33

3/11

¶34

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

¶35

W.A(MD)No.1567 of 2018

¶36

2.The appellant was an aspirant for the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry). In the notification, as many as 3 vacancies in the said post had been notified. It is seen that one vacancy arose as against BC category, one against general turn and one pertained to MBC (Tamil Medium). Since the appellant obviously could not have been an aspirant in respect of the vacancies reserved for BC and MBC, he can be said to be aggrieved only in respect of filling up of the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry) arising against general turn. The appellant cannot impugn the notification in respect of other vacancies in the post of Assistant Professor.

¶37

4/11

¶38

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

¶39

W.A(MD)No.1567 of 2018

¶40

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised two contentions:

¶41

a) The college did not have a validly constituted college committee.

¶42

b) The selection had been made only by the management committee and that too comprising Thulasiah Vandayar alone.

¶43

4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the department furnished proceedings dated 13.02.2017 granting approval for the appointment of Thulasiah Vandayar as Secretary for the period from 05.02.2017 to 04.02.2020. A mere look at the statutory scheme would show that there can be Secretary only for the college committee. The very fact that the appointment of Thulasiah Vandayar as Secretary was approved indicates that there was a validly constituted college committee.

¶44

5.As per Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 the college committee must comprise the following persons:

¶45

a) the Principal;

¶46

b) the senior-most Selection Grade Lecturer or Reader;

¶47

5/11

¶48

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

¶49

c) one other Selection Grade Lecturer ; and

¶50

d) the senior-most Superintendent :

¶51

W.A(MD)No.1567 of 2018

¶52

However, as per Rule 8(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 the committee shall consist of the following persons:

¶53

a) representatives of the educational agency, who shall be nominated by such educational agency:

¶54

b) Principal of the College;

¶55

c) Two senior-most Professors ;

¶56

d) One member nominated by the University concerned.

¶57

6.It is interesting to note that while the Act envisages inclusion of

¶58

the senior most superintendent in the college committee, the Rules do not refer to him at all.

¶59

7.Be that as it may, in the case on hand, the committee that selected

¶60

the candidates did comprise a representative of the educational agency, the Principal of the college, 2 senior most professors and also a member nominated by Bharathidasan University. We are therefore satisfied that there was a duly constituted college committee and that it was the said

¶61

6/11

¶62

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

¶63

W.A(MD)No.1567 of 2018

¶64

committee which made the selection. The fact that the committee had been described as “Managing Committee” will not make any difference. A rose is a rose by whatever name it is called. Though it was called as a managing committee, in substance, it was only a college committee.

¶65

8.There is another major impediment for the petitioner to cross. The selection was completed in May 2017 itself. The writ petition was filed only in 30.08.2018. It is well settled that a candidate who participates in a selection process cannot subsequently question the validity of the selection process. The principle of estoppel squarely operates against the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1995 (3) SCC 486 (Madan Lal & Others Vs The

¶66

State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others) held as follows:

¶67

“9. ... It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors., (AIR 1986 SC 1043), it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court

¶68

7/11

¶69

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

¶70

W.A(MD)No.1567 of 2018

¶71

that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.”

¶72

9.The learned single Judge rightly non-suited the appellant and interference with the said order is not warranted. This Writ Appeal stands dismissed.

¶73

10.Even though we have dismissed the writ appeal, it has been brought to our notice that one S.K.Thiyagarajan, S/o.Kaliyamoorthy was appointed as Assistant Professor (Chemistry) under MBC category. The Tahsildar, Kumbakonam vide communication dated 23.03.2023 had informed the college management that Thiyagarajan's community certificate is not genuine. It is unfortunate that, even though this information was brought to the knowledge of the management in March 2023 itself, action to suspend him was taken only recently. It appears that there is also some management dispute. This consideration cannot come in the way of taking effective action.

¶74

8/11

¶75

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

¶76

W.A(MD)No.1567 of 2018

¶77

11.The Department shall satisfy itself as to whether Thiyagarajan

¶78

belongs to the MBC category. If it is found that he does not belong to the said category, immediate action shall be taken against him in accordance with law. Due process shall be followed. Thiyagarajan shall be put on notice immediately.

¶79

12.With the aforesaid observations and directions to the department as well as the Management, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶80

[G.R.S., J.] [R.K.M, J.] 10.02.2026

¶81

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA

¶82

To

¶83