Madras High Court
S.Jayapal vs The Chairman on 6 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.397 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.397 of 2018
S.Jayapal ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
University Grants Commission (UGC),
Bhadur Shah Zafar Marg.,
New Delhi – 110 002.
2.The Chairman,
All India Council for Technical Education,
7th Floor, Chanderlok Building,
Janpath,
New Delhi – 110 001.
3.The Registrar,
Gandhigram Rural Institute – Deemed University,
Gandhigram – 624 302. Dindigul District.
4.B.Senthil Kumar ... Respondents/Respondents
(R4 is impleaded vide Court Order
dated 29.04.2021 made in CMP(MD)
No.3910/2021 in W.A.(MD) No.397/2018
by TSSJ & SAIJ)
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5938 of 2011, dated 31.01.2018.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Louis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/4
W.A.(MD)No.397 of 2018
For Respondent No.1 : No appearance
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
Standing Counsel
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.P.Thangavel
Standing Counsel
For Respondent No.4 : Mr.M.Saravana Kumar
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order in W.P.(MD)No.5938 of
2011, dated 31.01.2018.
2.The legal issue involved is whether the respondent University is
entitled to fix the minimum educational qualification for the recruitment to the
post of Assistant Professor and it is bound by the UGC regulation.
3.The learned Writ Court has rightly held that the University has right
to fix higher qualification and the petitioner has no right to question the
minimum educational qualification prescribed as per UGC norms.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.397 of 2018
4.The grievance of the appellant is that the recruitment is to the post
of Assistant Professor and the candidate has to handle only diploma level post
and therefore, PG level qualification is unnecessary. The learned Standing
Counsel for the University submitted that it is factually incorrect and the
previous post was abolished and the same was re-designated to handle decree
level posts. For the reasons assigned above, the order of the learned Writ Court
does not warrant interference.
5.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that time bound
promotion due to the appellant has not been extended till date. The appellant is
directed to submit a representation to the respondent University seeking
appropriate relief, which shall be considered by the respondent University in
accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
6.The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No
costs.
Index :Yes/No [T.S.S., J.] [S.A.I., J.]
Internet :Yes/No 06.07.2021
sj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.397 of 2018
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
sj
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.
W.A.(MD)No.397 of 2018
06.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
