Dr. C.Alagesaboopathi, Vs the Vice Chancellor

PRAYER : For Declaration declaring the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondent as illegal and consequently direct the respondents 1 & 2 to appoint the petitioner as Associate Professor in Botany in Periyar University, Salem, with all consequential benefits.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): M/s. Balan Haridas, R.Kamatchi Sundaresan.

¶16

Page1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

WP No.23651 of 2013

¶19

For Respondent(s): Ms.J.Janat Sharlee for M/s.Isaac Mohanlal for R1 & R2 Mr. B. Ram Prasath For R3

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner challenges the appointment of the third respondent to the post of “Associate Professor”, Department of Botany, pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 28.03.2013 issued by the second respondent.

¶22

The petitioner possesses a Ph.D. Degree in Botany and, pursuant to the

¶23

said notification, he submitted an application seeking selection and appointment, in compliance with the order passed by this Court. The application submitted by the petitioner was considered; however, he was not selected, as he was found to be less meritorious than the third respondent.

¶24

Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, as

¶25

per the recruitment notification, the essential qualification prescribed for the post of Associate Professor – Botany is that a candidate must possess a Master’s Degree in Botany with 55% marks or an equivalent Grade ‘B’ in the sevenpoint scale, along with a Ph.D. Degree in Botany and other prescribed qualifications. Therefore, the appointment of the third respondent, who possesses a Ph.D. Degree in Biotechnology, which is not equivalent to the prescribed qualification, is arbitrary and discriminatory.

¶26

__________ Page2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

WP No.23651 of 2013

¶29

Ms. J. Janat Sharlee, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, and Mr.

¶30

B. Ram Prasath, learned counsel for the third respondent, submitted that the Ph.D. Degree in Biotechnology possessed by the third respondent is in a relevant discipline and that the qualification possessed by him is equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, the appointment of the third respondent, who possesses the requisite qualification, cannot be said to be illegal.

¶31

The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the

¶32

materials placed on record have been duly considered.

¶33

The University Grants Commission has issued regulations prescribing

¶34

the minimum essential qualifications for appointment to the post of Associate Professor. As per the said regulations, a candidate must have a good academic record with a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned / allied / relevant discipline. Though the recruitment notification stipulates that a candidate must possess a Ph.D. Degree in Botany, the degree possessed by the third respondent in Biotechnology falls within an allied discipline to (a) Ph.D. Degree in Botany. Respondents 1 and 2, in paragraph 14 of their counter affidavit, have specifically stated that the Ph.D. Degree possessed by the third respondent in Biotechnology is in a relevant discipline, as determined by the Scrutiny / Selection Committee and approved by the competent authority. Therefore, the third respondent is eligible for selection and appointment to the said post. In any

¶35

Page3 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

WP No.23651 of 2013

¶38

event, the petitioner has since attained the age of superannuation and, even if he

¶39

were to succeed in this writ petition, he would not be entitled to appointment.

¶40