Madras High Court
B.Suresh vs A.Manoharan on 23 August, 2023
2023/MHC/4454
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)Nos.925 & 1582 of 2016
B.Suresh ...Appellant in W.A.(MD)No.925 /2016
1.The Registrar,
Madurai Kamaraj University,
Palkalai Nagar,
Madurai. ct-625 021.
2.The Vice-Chancellor,
Madurai Kamaraj University,
Palkalai Nagar,
Madurai-625 021. ...Appellants in W.A.(MD)No. 1582/ 2016
/Vs./
1.A.Manoharan
2.The Registrar,
Madurai Kamajar University,
Palkalai Nagar,
Madurai-21.
3.The Vice-Chancellor,
Madurai Kamaraj University,
Palkalai Nagar,
Madurai-21. ...Respondents in W.A.(MD)No.925/2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1.A.Manoharan
2.B.Suresh ...Respondents in W.A.(MD)No.1582/2016
COMMON PRAYER:- Writ Appeals - filed under Clause 15 of Letters
Patent Act, to set aside the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3460 of
2011 dated 03.06.2014.
In W.A.(MD)No.925 of 2014:
For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhurajadurai
For R1 : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
For R2 & R3 : Mr.M.Sricharan Rangarajan
for Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran
In W.A.(MD)No.1582 of 2016:
For Appellants : Mr.M.Sricharan Rangarajan
for Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran
For R1 : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
For R2 : Mr.G.Prabhurajadurai
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH , J.)
A common order is passed in these two writ appeals. The fact
as germane to decide the writ appeals are as follows. W.P.(MD)No.3460
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of 2011 had been filed by Dr.A.Manoharan (in short and henceforth
referred to as 'writ petitioner') challenging an order appointing
Dr.B.Suresh (in short 'appointee') to the post of University Librarian (in
short 'UL') in Madurai Kamarajar University (in short 'MKU').
2.The writ petitioner was aggrieved with the selection of the
appointee for the reason that the writ petitioner believed himself better
qualified to be appointed to the post of UL in MKU. This was for the
reason that he had experience as Assistant Professor in the department of
Library and Sciences in Bishop Heber College, Trichy from 10.01.1986
to 27.07.2010.
3.The writ petitioner drew attention to the definition of the
‘Teacher’ in Section 2(m) of the Madurai Kamaraj University Act, 1965
to state that Teachers connoted 'Lecturers, Readers, Assistant Professor,
Professor and other persons giving instructions in University Colleges
or Laboratories in affiliated or approved colleges or in hostels and
librarians as may be declared by the statutes to be teachers.'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.Thus according to him, the post of Assistant Professor would
be in pari materia with that of Librarian. His vast experience as Associate
Professor for 24 years should be considered in preference to the
experience brought to the table by the appellant. The appointee, for his
part, possesses educational qualifications of 15 years as college Librarian
and 3 years as a Lecturer in the Department of Library and Sciences in
Annamalai University.
5.The University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications
For Appointment of Teachers and other academic staff in Universities
and colleges and other measures for the maintenance of standards in
higher education) Regulations, 2010 (In short ‘2010 Regulations’),
stipulated the qualifications for UL in the following terms:
4.5.1.University Librarian:
(i)A Master's Degree in Library Science / Information
Science /documentation with at least 55% marks or its
equivalent grade of B in the UGC seven points scale and
consistently good academic record set out in these Regulations.
(ii)At least thirteen years as a Deputy Librarian in a
university library or eighteen years' experience as a College
Librarian.
(iii)Evidence of innovative library service and
organization of published work.
(iv)Desirable:A.M.Phil/Ph.D.Degree in library
science/information science/documentation/achieves and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
manuscript-keeping.”
6.The Writ Court examined in detail the rival contentions of
the parties. The preliminary objection raised in this writ appeal by the
learned senior counsel appearing for the counsel on record for MKU is
that the exercise engaged by the writ Court is itself contrary to what is
expected under Article 226 of the Constitution in such cases.
7.The writ petitioner, if at all he believed himself eligible to the
post of UL, ought to have restricted himself to making out his case for
entitlement and it was incumbent upon the Court to have examined his
credentials and eligibility alone. He argued that apparently, the writ
petitioner was not entitled to the post of UL in light of the clear
stipulation in the 2010 Regulations.
8.Perusal of the same would clearly reveal that the minimum
requirement is of 13 years as Deputy Librarian in a University and 18
years as College Librarian. The writ petitioner did not possessed even a
single year of experience as Librarian either at University or College
level and thus, his case stands compromised at the very threshold.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.The writ court ought to have restricted itself to a
consideration of this aspect of this matter alone and dismissed the same.
Instead, the Court has proceeded to examine the credentials of the
appointee, which was wholly unnecessary in the context of the prayer of
the writ petitioner.
10.That apart, the reference to malafides or favoritism to justify
judicial intervention is incorrect insofar as such allegations were wholly
unsupported by any material. More relevantly, the persons constituting
the scrutiny committee as against whom such allegations have been
made, were not made parties to the writ petition. These submissions are
well taken.
11.In the result, the writ court has set aside the entire selection
and has directed MKU to commence the process, afresh, calling all
eligible candidates for interview, if they are otherwise eligible, including
the writ petitioner, and pass orders of selection within the time stipulated
by the Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.Since it was only the writ petitioner and the appointee who
were parties to the writ petition and no others, we feel there was no
necessity to have expanded the scope of the litigation to disturb the entire
selection process, particularly in view of the fact that the members of
scrutiny committee were not even a party to the writ petition.
13.That apart, one aspect of the matter which weighs with us,
is that the writ petitioner has attained the age of superannuation even
prior to the dismissal of the writ petition. This fortifies our conclusion
that the entire selection need not have been directed to be redone, since
the writ petitioner was himself not entitled to the relief that was
ultimately granted by the writ Court.
14.The appointee has been in the seat of UL since the date of
appointment, which is 16.08.2010 and has continued in the post even
subsequent to the order of the writ court for the reason that there has
been an order of interim protection granted pending writ appeal. In fact,
this Court has aided the appointee in gaining experience as UL by virtue
of which, as on date, he would satisfy the eligibility criteria as the per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
UGC Regulations, 2010 (in short UGC Regulations, 2010), even though
he did not, earlier.
15.A slew of decisions have been cited at the instance of the
appointee to the effect that once a candidate has been holding a particular
position for a reasonably long period, he should not be disturbed from
that position at the conclusion of long pendency of litigation of several
years before the Courts. [see Tridip Kumar Dingal and others vs. State of
West Bengal and others [(2009) 1 SCC 768]
16.There is yet another aspect of the matter that commends
itself to us. The University Grants Commission has issued Regulations
on 18.07.2018, whereunder, the eligibility criteria for appointment of UL,
have been recast as follows:
III.University Librarian:
i)A Master's Degree in Library Science /Information
Science/Documentation Science with at least 55% marks or an
equivalent grade in a point-scale wherever the grading system is
follows.
(ii)At least ten years as a Librarian at any level in University
Library or ten years of teaching as Assistant/Associate Professor
in Library Science or ten years' experience as a College
Librarian.
iii)Evidence of innovative library services, including the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
integration of ICT in a library.
iv)A Ph.D. Degree in library science/information
science/documentation/archives and manuscript-keeping.
17.On a comparison of the 2018 Regulations and the 2010
Regulations, we find that while the former prescribe qualification of 10
years as Librarian in University library or 10 years of teaching as
Assistant /Associate Professor in Library Sciences. Thus parity has been
brought about between teaching of Library Sciences and working as a
Librarian. Both posts have achieved parity in terms of pay and other
benefits and academic and practical aspects of the science have finally
merged.
18.Though the impugned appointment has undoubtedly to be
tested in light of the Regulations that existed at that point in time, we
cannot completely ignore the evolution of the requirements over the
years, as seen from a comparison of the 2010 and 2018 Regulations.
That said, we do not intend to disturb the appointment of the appointee,
who shall continue in service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19.These Writ Appeals stand disposed in light of this order. No
costs.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
23.08.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
ta
W.A.(MD)Nos.925 & 1582 of 2016
Dated:
23.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
