Madras High Court
Dr.S.Pandiammal vs ) The Principal Secretary To ... on 24 February, 2021
W.P.(MD)Nos.3356...etc of 2021 (batch)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 24.02.2021
DELIVERED ON: 29.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD)Nos.3356, 4302, 3599, 4011,
4592, 4594, 4598, 4600, 4601, 4603 of 2021
and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2714, 2717, 2719, 3194, 3232, 3483, 2923, 3236,
3678, 3679, 3682, 3688, 3692, 3694 to 3698, 5342 of 2021
(Through Video Conference)
W.P.(MD) No.3356 of 2021:
Dr.S.Pandiammal ... Petitioner
Vs
1) The Principal Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2) The Director,
The Director of Collegiate Education,
EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.3356...etc of 2021 (batch)
3) The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Campus, Nungampakkam,
Chennai 600 006 ... Respondents
4) The Tamil Nadu All Government Colleges,
UGC Qualifies Guest Lecturer Association,
Rep. by its President, Mr.V.Thangaraj,
No.609, Thoppu Street,
Melsolankuppam Village & Post,
Kalasapakkam Taluk,
Madurai District 625 122 ... Impleaded respondent / R4
in W.P.(MD) No.4011/2021
5) Dr.R.Devaraj
6) Dr.K.Pushpalatha
7) Dr.D.Kamalakannan
8) P.Periyasamy
9) Dr.K.Arivukkarasi
10) Dr.R.Arulkumaran
11) V.Sathish
12) Dr.A.Karthikeyan
13) Dr.R.Sundarajan
14) Dr.S.P.Sakthimathan
15) Dr.K.M.Murugesan
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.3356...etc of 2021 (batch)
16) Dr.B.Panchanathan
17) Dr.R.Pandimeenal
18) Dr.C.Jeyaveeragandhi
19) Dr.A.Pandi
20) N.P.Senthil Kumar
21) A.Murugan
22)T.Lakshmi Devi
23) S.Senthil
24) M.Paranthaman ... RR 5 to 24 Impleaded
Respondents in W.P.(MD)
No.3356 of 2021
* R4 impleaded vide order of this Court made in W.M.P.(MD) No.5342 of 2021.
* RR 5 to 24 impleaded vide order of this Court made in W.M.P.(MD) Nos.3232 & 3194 of
2021 dated 24.02.2021
PRAYER in W.P.(MD) No.3356 of 2021: Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd Respondent pertaining to the
impugned order in Na.ka. No.15867/D2/2018 dated 12.02.2021 and
quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the
Respondents to complete the certificate Verification and interview
pursuant to the 3rd Respondent Notification No.12/2019 dated
28.08.2019 and 04.10.2019 and complete the selection process as per law
within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.3356...etc of 2021 (batch)
For Petitioner : Mr.Tha Kanagamuthu
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.M.Sricharan Rangarajan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mrs.J.Padmavathy Devi,
Special Government Pleader
For R-3 : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan,
Standing counsel.
For Impleaded : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan,
Respondents Senior Counsel & Mr.R.Gandhi
(RR 5 to 24)
******
COMMON ORDER
By notification dated 04.10.2019, the Teachers Recruitment Board had invited
applications for direct recruitment of 2331 posts of Assistant Professors for
Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education in Tamil Nadu
Collegiate Educational Services for the year 2018-2019. The petitioners herein are the
aspirants to these posts and claimed to have applied to these posts.
2.1.On 12.02.2021, the Director of Collegiate Education had
addressed the Principals of all the Government Colleges to register the
names of all the guest faculties, who had completed their Ph.D/
SET/SLET/NET/CSIR, as on 30.09.2019 and who have put in more than
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.3356...etc of 2021 (batch)
five years of service as Guest Lecturers, for the purpose of regularizing
their services. The petitioners are aggrieved against the proposal to
regularize the Guest Lecturers, on the ground that their scope of being
considered for the post of Assistant Professors, through direct
recruitment, would be affected and the total number of vacancies could
be reduced owing to the regularization of these Guest Lecturers. Since
the grievance of all these petitioners are one and the same, these writ
petitions are disposed of through this common order.
2.2. The brief facts of the case are that there are about 5200
vacancies for the post of Assistant Professors in the Government Arts and
Science Colleges and College of Education, which post is the entry level
post. Out of these vacancies, 2331 vacancies upto the year 2016-17 were
sought to be filled up through direct recruitment conducted by the
Teachers Recruitment Board and accordingly, a notification came to
issued on 04.10.2019. The recruitment process, though commenced, yet
to be completed.
2.3. In the meantime, the Principals of the various Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.3356...etc of 2021 (batch)
Colleges were authorised to appoint Guest Lecturers, considering the
interest of the students and in accordance with the guidelines and
procedures prescribed through various Government Orders and
accordingly, several Guest Lecturers came to be appointed in all the
Government Colleges.
2.4. Through G.O. Ms.No.56, Higher Education (F2) Department
dated 21.03.2020, a policy decision was taken to regularize the service of
Guest Lecturers for 1146 vacancies notified for the year 2017-18 and
2018-19 for the post of Assistant Professors. These 1146 vacancies are
exclusive of the 2331 vacancies, for which the notification for direct
recruitment was called for on 04.01.2019. The petitioner's herein, now
seek for forbearing the respondents from regularizing the services of the
Guest Lecturers.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, impleading
respondents and the Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
4. While the common grievance of the petitioners seems to be that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.3356...etc of 2021 (batch)
the scope for their consideration in the direct recruitment for the post of
Assistant Professors would be reduced if the services of the Guest
Lecturers are regularized for the 1146 vacancies, the learned Additional
Advocate General would submit that the 2300 vacancies that have been
called, for which the notification for direct Recruitment has been issued,
does not include the 1146 posts, whereby, the services of the Guest
Lecturers are sought to be regularized.
5. The petitioners herein, are all applicants in the direct recruitment
process for the post of Assistant Professors. They are either persons, who
claim to be qualified to apply for the post of Assistant Professors or
Guest Lecturers, or are not eligible for regularization, as per the
conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.56 Higher Education Department
dated 21.03.2020.
6. While that being so, this Court had raised a preliminary doubt to
the petitioners' locus to challenge the respondents' proposal to regularize
the Guest Lecturers, serving under the various Government
Colleges. The response of the petitioners to such an objection was that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.3356...etc of 2021 (batch)
their scope for consideration would reduce, if 1146 vacancies are filled
up through regularization of the Guest Lecturers and hence, they have
locus to challenge the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate
Education, dated 12.02.2021 or seek for restraining the Department from
regularizing their services.
7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the proceedings dated
12.02.2021 is an inter-departmental proceedings between the Director of
Collegiate Education and the Principals of various Arts Colleges
whereby, the details with regard to the qualifications and experience of
the Guest Lecturers are sought for. Though these particulars have been
sought in connection with the proposal to regularize these Guest
Lecturers, the proceedings dated 12.02.2021 is yet to culminate into a
cause of action. The proceedings of regularization needs to undergo
various stages of identifying the eligible Guest Lecturers, which is a
lengthy procedure. On an over all perspective of the grounds raised in
these writ petitions, maintainability of these writ petitions appear to be
faulted on three aspects: (i) Firstly, the inter-departmental communication
is pursuant to the policy decision of the Government of Tamil Nadu taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.3356...etc of 2021 (batch)
in G.O.Ms.No.56 Higher Eduction (F2) Department dated 21.03.2020
and this Government order has not been put under challenge in all these
writ petitions; (ii) Secondly, the petitioners are neither Guest Lecturers
nor are such Guest Lecturers, eligible for regularization and therefore,
are not aggrieved parties; and (iii) Thirdly, though the petitioners have
sought for prayers to refrain the Authorities from regularizing the Guest
Lecturers, such affected Guest Lecturers have not been made as parties in
these writ petitions.
8. Before adverting further on this aspect, it would be appropriate
to quote the views of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, with
regard to the Government's policy decision to regularise the Guest
Lecturers, who have been retained for considerable period in the Adhoc
appointment. In the case of M.Saravana Kumar vs. the Secretary to
Government, Education Department and others in W.A.(MD) No. 1350
of 2005... etc batch, it was held as follows:
“23. Keeping the above considerations in mind we
may carefully consider the judgment of the Supreme Court
in State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh (supra). The facts in
that case (as stated in paragraph - 2 of the said decision)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.3356...etc of 2021 (batch)
reveal that temporary appointees had been initially
appointed for 6 months or so, but had continued for 10
years or more, and had not been regularised, since there
was no selection board in existence then in the State of
Haryana. Hence, the State Government issued orders from
time to time for regularization of such employees subject
to certain conditions. In pursuance of the said orders
some persons who satisfied the conditions prescribed in
those orders were regularized, but many could not be
regularised as they did not satisfy one or the other
conditions prescribed. However, they had been allowed to
continue in service. It is such persons who filed writ
petitions praying for regularisation. In those
circumstances, the Supreme Court was of the view that if a
person who has been given a temporary or ad hoc
appointment and continued for a long time, the court
presumes the need or warrant for regular posts and often
directed regularization.
24. The Supreme Court referred to its own decision
in Dharwad District P.W.D. Literature Daily Wage
Employees Association Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990
SC 883, Jacob Vs. Kerala Water Authority, AIR 1990 SC
2228, etc.”
The aforesaid observations are self-explanatory and thus, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.3356...etc of 2021 (batch)
policy decision of the Government to regularize these Guest Lecturers,
whose services have been retained for a considerable length of time,
cannot be found fault with.
9. In view of the discrepancies, referred to in the preceding
paragraphs, the petitioners lack locus to file these writ petitions.
However, I do not intend to venture any further into these aspects, since
these writ petitions also deserve to be rejected on the ground that the
apprehension of these petitioners, seem to be misplaced, pursuant to the
clarifications made by the respondents.
10. The only apprehension of these petitioners is that the proposal
to regularize the services of the Guest Lecturers, in respect of 1146
vacancies, may affect the 2331 vacancies called for in the notification for
direct recruitment. This anxiety of the petitioners has now been clarified
by the respondents, stating that the 2331 vacancies under the notification
for direct recruitment, are exclusive of the 1146 vacancies, which is
sought to be filled through regularization of the services of the Guest
Lecturers. The petitioners herein, have chosen to participate in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.3356...etc of 2021 (batch)
recruitment process for only 2331 vacancies and therefore, the
regularization of the Guest Lecturers, which vacancies do not form a part
of the notification, may not affect their chances for consideration in any
manner. Even assuming that if a policy decision is taken to fill up the
1146 vacancies through direct recruitment, such vacancies do not form a
part of the present notification and on this count also, the petitioners
cannot be aggrieved. In view of the clarifications made by the
respondents in the counter affidavit, the writ petitions do not deserve
consideration.
11. For the foregoing reasons, all the Writ Petitions stand
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
29.03.2021
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
sts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.3356...etc of 2021 (batch)
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate / litigant concerned.
To:
1) The Principal Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2) The Director,
The Director of Collegiate Education,
EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006
3) The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Campus, Nungampakkam,
Chennai 600 006
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.3356...etc of 2021 (batch)
M.S.RAMESH, J.,
sts
Common Order made in
W.P.(MD)Nos.3356, 4302, 3599, 4011,
4592, 4594, 4598, 4600, 4601, 4603 of 2021
Dated:
29.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
