C.SURENDERA DILIP Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR ANNA UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
LAWS(MAD)-2020-12-377
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (AT: MADURAI)
Decided on December 07,2020

C.Surendera Dilip Appellant
VERSUS
Vice Chancellor Anna University Campus Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. - (1.) The Selection List for appointment to the post of Lecturers / Assistant Professors / Professors in the Department of Chemistry, issued by the 2nd Respondent University, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. The Respondents 3 to 6 were selected and the 7th respondent was impleaded subsequently.
(2.) The contention of the Petitioner is that he is fully qualified and eligible for selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer in Universities. As per the Regulations issued by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), every candidate must possess the qualification of NET or SLET. The Petitioner was appointed, as Lecturer, in Anna University at Tiruchirappalli, on contract basis and he was working to the satisfaction of his superiors with a fond hope that his services would be regularized. The post of Lecturer was latter on redesignated, as 'Visiting Faculty' (Regular Work) from 20.08.2008 onwards.
(3.) The 2nd Respondent issued a Notification in Recruitment Advertisement, dated 17.09.2008, inviting applications from the eligible candidates, for appointment to the post of Lecturers / Assistant Professors / Professors, in respect of various disciplines, including for the Department of Chemistry. There was no indication in the Notification as regards to the application of Communal Reservation and the total number of posts notified in respect of each discipline. However, it was informed in the Notification that further details would be made available in the Official Web-site of the University. But, it was not disclosed even in the Web-site, as to how many posts were notified in respect of each discipline, in each category of posts. There was no proper application of Rule of Reservation as well. The qualification prescribed by the 2nd Respondent in the Notification is in violation of the qualifications prescribed by the AICTE. It is mandatory to possess the qualification of NET or SLET. But, the Notification did not contain the said mandatory qualification prescribed by the AICTE in its Regulations.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.