Dismissed

Dr.Manikandan Rajagopal v. All India Council for Technical Education

Madras HC3 Feb 2026WP/25115/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a lecturer challenging the rejection of his application for the post of Assistant Director in the All India Council for Technical Education. The court held that the applicant lacked the requisite supervisory experience at the specified level and in the specified sectors. The petition was dismissed with costs and connected petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition; direction to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs to the High Court Legal Services Committee.

Dr.Manikandan Rajagopal Vs All India Council for… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.No.25115 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.02.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.25115 of 2021

¶7

and WMP.Nos.26466, 26467 and 26468 of 2021

¶8

Dr.Manikandan Rajagopal

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

¶11

All India Council for Technical Education Rep by its Member Secretary Ministry of Education, Government of India Nelson Mandela Marg Vasant Kuni New Delhi – 110 070. … Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to cal for the records pertaining to the public notice in No.F.2-33/2020-21/AdminE/Rectt.Gr A, B & C/dated 12.11.2021 issued by the respondent and quash the same and direct the respondent to consider the name of the petitioner for interview to the post of Additional Director.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arasu Sanga Tamil for Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja For Respondent : Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, SCGC

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned

¶16

counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records.

¶17

1/8

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.25115 of 2021

¶20

2.The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed the action of the respondent in not considering the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Additional Director of the respondent, pursuant to the advertisement caused by the respondent to fill up the vacancies by way of direct recruitment under Advertisement No.Admin.(Estt.)/02(01)2021 dated 12.02.2021.

¶21

The petitioner contended that under the aforesaid advertisement applications have been called for to fill up various vacancies including that of Assistant Director in the pay matrix Level-11 as per 7^th CPC, numbering to 13 vacancies and that the petitioner being eligible to the post of Assistant Director, had applied to the same; and that the respondent by the public notice dated 12.11.2021 had rejected his application with remarks “Less experience as per RR. Not Recommended”.

¶22

The petitioner contended as per the advertisement caused by the respondent, the required experience is 8 years of service at Teaching or Research, Educational planning or Administration, Training; and that as he had worked as

¶23

2/8

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.25115 of 2021

¶26

lecturer in Karunya University during the period between 2010-2015, and thereafter having worked at RAMP IT (an I.T. Company between 2015-2017) he has fulfilled the eligibility criteria of having teaching experience of 4 years, as specified in the advertisement. Thus, the rejection of his candidature by the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and he is liable to be appointed as Assistant Director.

¶27

The respondent filed counter affidavit.

¶28

The respondent by the counter affidavit contended that the petitioner

¶29

did not have the requisite experience as per the advertisement caused for filling up

¶30

the vacancy of Assistant Director post and as such experience of the petitioner was not considered.

¶31

I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

¶32

Though it is vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner of he

¶33

having required experience of 8 years of service out of which 4 years of teaching,

¶34

3/8

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.25115 of 2021

¶37

it is pertinent to note that the relevant Clause of experience mentioned in the advertisement reads as under :-

¶38

“ Experience : Eight years experience at supervisory

¶39

level out of which, at least four years experience in Teaching or Research, Educational planning or Administration, Training in Central or State Government or University or other institutions of higher education or Autonomous Bodies or PSUs.”

¶40

(Underlining supplied by Court)

¶41

A reading of the above clause in the advertisement dealing with experience specifies that the required experience of eight years should be at supervisory level, out of which at least 4 year experience should be in teaching or research, educational planning or Administration, Training. The advertisement further specifies that the experience in the above field is to be in Central or State Government or University or other institutions of higher education or autonomous body or PSUs.

¶42

Though, the petitioner had worked in an educational institution during the period from 2010-2015, the position in which the petitioner had worked

¶43

4/8

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.25115 of 2021

¶46

is only as a lecturer and was not at Supervisory level like that of HOD. Thus, the experience possessed by petitioner as lecturer cannot be considered as meeting the eligibility criteria.

¶47

The petitioner thereafter had joined an Information and Technology company called RAMP IT and though worked as Chief Technology Officer and the said organisation cannot be considered as involved in teaching, research etc., as specified in advertisement and also not being a Central or State Government or University or other institution of higher education or Autonomous body or PSUs, for the petitioner to claim the experience gained by him in the said organisation is to be considered as meeting the experience criteria of 8 years experience at supervisory level.

¶48

Since, the petitioner did not fulfill the required experience criteria specified in the advertisement, the action of the respondent in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner with remarks of not having required experience in the considered view of this Court cannot be found fault.

¶49

The petitioner while claiming appointment to the post of Assistant

¶50

5/8

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.25115 of 2021

¶53

Director without meeting the required experience criteria specified in the advertisement at Supervisory level of 8 years had approached this Court by assailing the action of the respondent in rejecting the application, on a misconceived notion.

¶54

Accordingly, the writ petition as filed is devoid of merits is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost to the credit of High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶55

03.02.2026

¶56

Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No tsh

¶57

To 1. All India Council for Technical Education Rep by its Member Secretary Ministry of Education, Government of India Nelson Mandela Marg Vasant Kuni New Delhi – 110 070.

¶58

6/8

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.No.25115 of 2021

¶61

2.The High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai.

¶62

7/8

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.No.25115 of 2021

¶65

T. VINOD KUMAR, J.

¶66

tsh

¶67

W.P.No.25115 of 2021

¶68

03.02.2026.

¶69

8/8

¶70

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

Dr.Manikandan Rajagopal v. All India Council for Technical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Manikandan Rajagopal v. All India Council for Technical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Balaji Vs The Secretary

K.Vivekanandhan Vs Divisional Engineer

V.Rajendiran Vs Teachers Recruitment Board

R.Raghu Vs The State of TamilNadu

C.Marimuthu Vs The Registrar of Co-operative Societies

P.Shobana Vs The Additional chief secretary to Government