Madras High Court
Ptv.Bhuvaneswari vs The Registrar on 4 February, 2025
2025:MHC:434
W.P.No.2104 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.No.2104 of 2019
PTV.Bhuvaneswari,
Professor,
Department of Electronics Engineering,
Madras Institute of Technology,
Anna University,
Chennai – 600 044. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Registrar,
Anna University,
Chennai – 600 025.
2. The Syndicate,
Represented by the Vice Chancellor,
Anna University,
Chennai – 600 025. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for issuance of Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the
records of the second respondent pertaining to Resolution No.249.15 dated
03.09.2018 communicated vide letter Ref. No.:61861/PR21/04 dated
08.10.2018 of the first respondent as well as the records of the first
respondent pertaining to Procs No.001/PR15/2014 dated 23.01.2018 and the
Procs.No.011/PR20/14 dated 15.02.2018 and quash the same in so far as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P.No.2104 of 2019
stipulation that it takes effect only from date of joining and consequently,
direct the first respondent to fix the pay and seniority of the petitioner on par
with the other Professors in the first respondent university selected vide
notification Adv.No.:001/PR 15/2014 dated 07.01.2014 and grant attendant
benefits to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.Richardson Wilson
for M/s.Wilson Associates
For R1 : Mr.U.Baranidharan
For R2 : No appearance
ORDER
Heard Mr.Richardson Wilson, the learned counsel for the Petitioner
and Mr.U.Baranidharan, the learned counsel for the first respondent.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of
the second respondent passed in Resolution No.249.15 dated 03.09.2018
and the orders of the first respondent in Procs No.001/PR15/2014 dated
23.01.2018 and the Procs.No.011/PR20/14 dated 15.02.2018 and to direct
the first respondent to fix the pay and seniority of the petitioner on par with
the other Professors in the first respondent university selected vide
notification Adv.No.:001/PR 15/2014 dated 07.01.2014 and grant attendant
benefits to her.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. In response to the notification issued by the first respondent on
07.01.2014 calling for the candidates for the post of 'Assistant Professor',
'Associate Professor' and 'Professor' in various departments of Anna
University, the petitioner had applied to the post of 'Professor' in Electrical
and Electronics Engineering Department by claiming reservation under
Scheduled Caste (SC) Arunthathiyar community. However, the petitioner's
candidature was rejected by citing the reason that the educational
qualification possessed by her is not compatible to the qualifications
prescribed in the notification for the post of 'Professor'. The petitioner had
possessed the degrees in Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) in Electrical and
Electronics Engineering and Master of Engineering (M.E.) in Applied
Electronics and Ph.D. in Networking. However, the respondent University
demanded that the petitioner ought to have possessed the degree in B.E. in
Electronics and Communication Engineering.
4. The petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.28167 of 2017
challenging the above rejection and claimed that the notification had omitted
to mention the relevant branch of B.E. for the post notified. The writ petition
has been dismissed and the Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner challenging
the same was allowed by confirming that the petitioner's qualification was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
very much compatible as per the rules for the post called for. The Special
Leave Petition filed by the respondent University also got dismissed by
confirming the judgment of the Writ Appellate Court. Now the petitioner has
filed the present writ petition stating that had the respondent University did
not accept her qualification as the required qualification for the post called
for, she would not have missed her appointment in the year 2014 itself along
with the other appointees.
5. Mr.Richardson Wilson, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that once the petitioner's qualification is found to be satisfactory
and compatible to the requirements of educational qualification sought in
the notification, then it would operate and relate back to the date of
notification and hence the petitioner's placement should be given effect from
the date of the notification and the petitioner's seniority should be counted
on par with the other appointees who were appointed in pursuant to the
notification.
6. No doubt the petitioner had raised a claim for eligibility for
appointment to the post called for in the earlier notification issued by the
respondent University in the year 2014 and she found herself qualified to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
said post in view of the orders passed by the Writ Appellate Court which
was later confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also. But the petitioner's
claim for seniority by placing her along with the 2014 batch of selection has
to be analysed and the position of law already settled in this regard.
7. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Sadhana Singh Dangi and Pinki Asati and others reported in (2022) 12
SCC 401, wherein it is held that the candidates cannot be held responsible
for the anomaly that has arisen in the later appointments and hence they
have been ordered to be given with due seniority from such deemed date of
appointment and not from the actual date of their appointment. The relevant
part of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:
“... 26. We now turn to the issue presented by Mr. Rungta, learned
Senior Advocate, for our consideration It is quite clear that the candidates
represented by Mr. Rungta were placed at a higher position in the Select
List but unfortunately they were not given appointments along with the
candidates who were at a lower level. These candidates cannot be held
responsible for the anomaly which has arisen as a result of their late
appointments. In order to do complete justice, we, therefore, direct:
26.1. All candidates who were at higher positions in merit but were
appointed later shall be deemed to have been appointed on the earliest of the
dates when their juniors or candidates at lower levels were appointed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26.2. Their seniority shall be reckoned from such deemed date of
appointment and not from their actual date of appointments.
26.3. The issue of probation for all categories of candidates shall be
considered together as one single batch and the issue of probation shall not
be segregated amongst the members of the batch.
26.4. All such candidates who were at higher levels of the revised list
shall be entitled to their salaries and emoluments for the period of about
seven months for which they were deprived of service.”
8. In the above judgment reference was made to the judgment in
Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner
reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785. As per the facts of the said case one of the
candidate had been omitted to be appointed in the 2001 selection despite he
has been selected. The reason for not accommodating the above candidate
was due to selection of excess women candidates and not on the fault on the
part of the candidates. Had there not been selection of any excess women
candidates than the number of women candidates required to be selected,
Rajesh Kumar Dharia would have got appointed in the year 2001 selection
itself. Despite the very same candidate got selected in the subsequent 2005
year examination, considering the above fault done during the selection
process, that petitioner was given with the benefit of getting the lowest
position in the earlier recruitment year 2001. By applying the same logic in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sadhana Singh Dangi's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
granted the relief to those candidates whose appointments were delayed due
to the fault on the part of the respondents and to re-work their seniority by
placing them below the last candidate of the selection year.
9. Mr.U.Baranidharan, the learned counsel for the respondents,
submitted that no seniority can be fixed for a candidate who has not joined
the service and the seniority would start to operate only on and from the date
of appointment and date of appointment could be the relevant factor for
considering the seniority.
10. Reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in K.Meghachandra Singh and others Vs. Ningam Siro and others
reported in (2020) 5 SCC 689, wherein it is made clear that the date of
joining will be taken into account for seniority. However the above case
does not relate to the delayed appointment due to the fault on the part of the
selecting authority. There are earlier such instances where appointments
were delayed due to the fault on the part of the respondent authorities. The
seniority of the candidates so selected has been given with the relief of
recasting his / her seniority to the year of recruitment rather than the year of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appointment.
11. On perusal of the orders passed in the Writ Appeal filed by the
petitioner with regard to her qualification, it is seen that the Writ Appellate
Court completely agree with the claim made by the petitioner and found
fault with the respondent University for having given a wrong interpretation
to the Rules. In the discussion of the above judgment passed in the Writ
Appeal, it is observed that as per the reply given by All India Council for
Technical Education (AICTE), the petitioner was found to be eligible to the
department for which she has been recruited and the underlying principle of
the guidelines in notifying with regard to the relevant qualifying degree
suitable for the post, is in view of interdisciplinary nature of emerging
technologies. As the University has not updated itself and had relied on the
old Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.95 Higher Education (C2)
Department, dated 05.05.2010 and omitted to mention in the notification
about the relevant branch, the petitioner's qualification is found to be
relevant to the post for which the order she applied.
12. Since the petitioner has been dragged to the Court unnecessarily
and was forced to undergo the mental agony of facing a litigation and waited
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for four years by allowing her juniors to become senior to her, I feel
appropriate order should be taken to recast her seniority in the light of the
earlier judgments passed in case involving similar facts.
13. In view of the above observation, the Writ Petition is allowed and
the order of the second respondent in Resolution No.249.15 dated
03.09.2018 communicated vide letter Ref. No.:61861/PR21/04 dated
08.10.2018 of the first respondent and the order of the first respondent
pertaining to Procs No.001/PR15/2014 dated 23.01.2018 and the
Procs.No.011/PR20/14 dated 15.02.2018, are set aside and the respondents
are directed to place the petitioner as a last candidate of the selection year
2014 of her batch and to rework the seniority list. However, it is made clear
that the petitioner shall not be eligible for any monetary benefit attached to
her revised seniority and the benefit due to recasting the seniority will be
only for the purpose of promotion and pensionary benefits, if any. No costs.
04.02.2024
Index : Yes
Neutral citation : Yes
Speaking Order
bkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.N.MANJULA, J.
bkn
To:
1. The Registrar,
Anna University,
Chennai – 600 025.
2. The Vice Chancellor,
The Syndicate,
Anna University,
Chennai – 600 025.
04.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
