1

IMPUGNED ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 12.02.2015
DATE OF DECISION: 16.02.2015
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
W.A. Nos.881 and 882 of 2014 & M.P. Nos.1 & 2 of 2014
Dr. Bolleddu Sivanagaiah

Appellant in both the Was

/Petitioner
Versus

The Registrar
Central University of Tamil Nadu
Thanjavur Road
Tiruvarur
Tamil Nadu 610 004
Respondent in both the Was/
Respondents

Writ Appeals preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent

against the common order dated 21.03.2014 passed by this Court in
W.P.Nos.62 and 63 of 2013 respectively.

Prayer in W.P.No.62 of 2013: petition filed under article 226 of the

constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the
respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview to be
held on 3rd and 4th January 2013 for the post of Assistant Professor of
English in Scheudle caste category pursuant to the employment notice

2
no.2/ CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.06.2012 issued by the respondent and
consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for
appointment to the post of Assistant Professor of English in schedule
caste category.

Prayer in W.P.No.63 of 2013: Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the
respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview to be
held on 3rd and 4th January 2013 for the post of Assistant professor of
English in General category (in W.P.No.62/13) Associate professor of
English in General Category (in W.P.No.63 of 2013) pursuant to the
Employment notice No.2/CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.06.2012 issued by
the respondent and consequently direct the respondent to consider the
petitioner for appointment to the post of assistant professor of English
in General category (in W.P.No.62/2013) and Associate professor of
English in General Category (in W.P.no.63/2013).
For appellant in
both the WAs

For respondent in
both the WAs

Mr. S. Sathiachandran
For Mr. S. Saravanan

Mr. T. Ravikumar

COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.)

3
The instant writ appeals arise from the common order dated
21.03.2014 passed in W.P. Nos.62 and 63 of 2013 respectively,
wherein, the prayer of the writ petitioner, seeking a direction to
consider his case for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in
English in Scheduled Caste category and in General category in
W.P.Nos.62 and 63 of 2013 respectively, has been turned down.
2

For the purpose of brevity and clarity, the parties are

referred to as per their litigative status in the instant appeals.

3

The facts in nutshell, relevant for the adjudication of the

dispute are that pursuant to the notice dated 06.06.2012, inviting online
applications for appointment on the post of Professor/Associate
Professor/Assistant Professor by the respondent university, the
petitioner made an application for consideration to the post of Associate
Professor in English. The qualification prescribed in the notice is as
under:
i.

Good academic record with a Ph.D. Degree in the

concerned / allied/relevant discipline.

ii.

A Master's degree with at least 55% marks (or an

equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is

followed).

4
iii.

A minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and /

or research in an academic / research position equivalent to that

of Assistant Professor in a University, College or Accredited
Research Institution/industry excluding the period of Ph.D.
Research with evidence of published work and a minimum of 5
publications as books and / or research/policy papers.

iv.

Contribution to educational innovation, decision of new

curricula and courses and technology mediated teaching learning

process with evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and
research students.

v.

A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic

Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal

System (PBAS), set out in the UGC Regulations, 2010.

The requirement of good academic record was defined under the

heading Note of the aforestated notice and the same reads thus:
NOTE:

1.

Under the term good academic record , the candidate

must have obtained on an average of 50% marks in each of the

two public examinations/degrees immediately preceding the
Master's degree.

5
2.

A relaxation of 5% may be provided at the graduate and

Master's level for the SC/ST/Persons with Disabilities (Physical

and Visual Disabilities) categories for the purpose of eligibility
and for assessing good academic record during direct recruitment
to teaching positions.

After shortlisting the applications, the list of candidates having the

requisite qualification and experience for interview, was promulgated
on 15.12.2012, wherein, the name of the appellant did not figure.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the two instant writ petitions,
viz., W.P. No.62 of 2013 for consideration of his candidature under the
Scheduled Caste category and W.P.No.63 of 2013, seeking a direction
to permit him to participate in the interview and consequently, to
consider him for appointment on the post of Associate Professor in
English.

4.

The Writ Court, by interim order dated 03.01.2013

permitted the petitioner to participate in the interview. Both the writ

petitions were considered and decided by a common order and
eventually, they were dismissed holding that the appellant had secured
40.6% marks in Higher Secondary Course-Intermediate (for short HSCIntermediate)and 44.5% marks in graduation, which is far below the
eligibility criteria mentioned in Clause 5.18(a) of the notice and as
such, he was not entitled to be considered for appointment, as sought
by him. Thus, these two writ appeals, questioning the legality and

6
validity of the common impugned order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the
Writ Court.

5.

Sri. S. Sathiachandran, learned counsel for the appellant

would submit that the appellant had obtained 3 Master's degrees in

English, i.e., (i) M.A. (English) from Andhra University, (ii) M.A.
(English) from Osmania University and (iii) M.Phil. (English) from
Acharya Nagarjuna University and he has also completed Ph.D.
(English) from Acharya Nagarjuna University. Thus, the appellant did
possess the requisite 45% marks in two degrees, apart from one
Master's degree. The appellant has 8 years of teaching experience, 7
publications and more than 5 papers to his credit. The other less
meritorious candidates have been considered and appointed to the post
in question. It is further contended that good academic record does not
mean only securing more than 50% or 45% marks in graduation or
HSC-Intermediate, particularly, in a case, where the appellant has
obtained 3 Master's Degrees, securing more than 50% marks in each
degree. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the
appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste community and as such, the
appellant must be given relaxation to further his advancement in life, as
he has been suffering for decades.
6.

Per contra, Sri. T. Ravikumar, learned counsel for the

respondent, would submit that the appellant partook pursuant to the

notice, wherein, the qualification was clearly prescribed that good

7
academic record means an average of 50% marks in each of the two
public examinations/degrees immediately preceding the Master's
degree and having regard to the social status, a relaxation of 5% was
granted in respect of average of 50% marks, which was for the General
category. It was next contended that the qualification, as aforestated,
has been determined on the basis of UGC Regulations on Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff
in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of
Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (for short the UGC Regulations ).
The appellant has not chosen to challenge the legality and validity of
the qualification prescribed in the notice and as such, he may not be
permitted to plead that further relaxation is necessary, in case of those
candidates who belong to Scheduled Caste category.
7.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the

pleadings and documents appended thereto.

8.

Indisputably, the prescribed qualification for the post in

question is good academic record with a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned

/ allied / relevant discipline, a Master's degree with at least 55% marks
(or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is
followed), a minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and / or
research in an academic / research position equivalent to that of
Assistant Professor in a University, College or Accredited Research
Institution/industry, excluding the period of Ph.D. research with
evidence of published work and a minimum of 5 publications as books

8
and / or research / policy papers, contribution to educational
innovation, decision of new curricula and courses and technology
mediated teaching learning process with evidence of having guided
doctoral candidates and research students, a minimum score as
stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based
Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), set out in the UGC
Regulations. The term Good academic record has been defined under
the heading Note of the notice. As per the said Note, a candidate is
deemed to have good academic record, if he obtains on an average,
50% marks in each of the two public examinations/degrees,
immediately preceding the Master's degree. It is further provided in the
Note that relaxation of 5% is permissible at the graduate and Master's
level for the SC/ST category candidates. This qualification is strictly in
conformity with the requirements as notified under Clause 4.1.0 of the
UGC Regulations.
9.

It is beyond cavil that the appellant belongs to Scheduled

Caste category and as such, for him, the requirement is average of 45%
marks at the graduate level and 50% marks at the Master's level. The
appellant did possess more than 50% marks in his Master's degree.
Obtaining two Master's degrees in English from two different
Universities, one with 53.4% and second with 58% cannot improve the
position as the requirement is of having an average of 45% marks in
graduation and other degree preceding the Master's degree. It is not
disputed by the appellant that he had obtained 44.5% marks in

9
graduation and 40.6% marks in HSC-Intermediate. It is pertinent to
point out that HSC-Intermediate and graduation only can be treated as
two public examinations/degree before the Master's degree, for,
securing M.Phil. Degree, cannot be treated as a Master's degree.
10.

Thus, we do not find any difficulty in holding that the

appellant did not have good academic record as required under the
notice dated 06.06.2012. It is also to be noted that the appellant has not
questioned the legality and validity of the qualification prescribed
under the notice, which was in accordance with the requirements of the
UGC Regulations.

11.

The second question which arises for our consideration is

as to whether the appellant, belonging to Scheduled Caste category,

ought to have been given more relaxation, keeping in view, the
historical background.
12.

Adverting to the argument of social justice and

backwardness, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the

matter dealing with requisite minimum benchmark for admission to
medical course, in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another vs. State of M.P.
and Others1, felicitously observed as under:
67. The ambit of special provisions under Article 15(4) has
already been considered by us. While the object of Article 15(4)
is to advance the equality principle by providing for protective
discrimination in favour of the weaker sections so that they may

10
become stronger and be able to compete equally with others
more fortunate, one cannot also ignore the wider interests of
society while devising such special provisions. Undoubtedly,
protective discrimination in favour of the backward, including
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is as much in the interest
of society as the protected groups. At the same time, there may
be other national interests, such as promoting excellence at the
highest level and providing the best talent in the country with the
maximum available facilities to excel and contribute to society,
which have also to be borne in mind. Special provisions must
strike a reasonable balance between these diverse national
interests.
13.

The appellant is not the only candidate belonging to

Scheduled Caste category. On a perusal of the list, we find that 10 other

candidates, belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
categories, met the requisite qualification and were invited for
interview. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
in this regard, without questioning the legality of the notified
qualification, is noticed to be rejected.

14.

Thus, the reasons recorded by the Writ Court for coming

to the conclusion that the writ petitions are devoid of merit, are
perfectly valid and proper, warranting no interference.

11
15.

As a sequel, both the writ appeals fail and they are

accordingly dismissed. Costs made easy. Connected Miscellaneous

Petitions are closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar
Sd/Sub Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SCR XXI RULE 3 (1) (a)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.

OF 2015

(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

[Arising out of final Judgment and Common Order dated 16.02.2015
passed by the Honble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ
Appeal Nos. 881 and 882 of 2014]
BETWEEN

POSITION OF PARTIES

In the
High Court
Appellant

In this Court

Respondent

Contesting
Respondent

Petitioner

Vs.
The Registrar, Central
University of Tamil Nadu,
Thanjavur road, Tiruvarur
district, Tamil nadu 610 004
To,
The Honble Chief Justice of India and his Companion Justices of
the Honble Supreme Court of India.

12
The humble petition of the petitioner
above named.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
1.

That the petitioner is filing the present Special Leave Petition

Arising out of final Judgment and Common Order dated
16.02.2015 passed by the Honble High Court of Judicature at
Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 881 and 882 of 2014, whereby the
Honble High Court was pleased dismiss the Writ Appeals filed
by the petitioner herein..

2.

QUESTION OF LAW

A. Whether two public examinations or degree preceding

the qualifying Masters degree would include all the
degrees before the qualifying Masters degree or it means
only the UG degree and the HSC-Intermediate?

B. Whether two public examinations or degree preceding

the qualifying Masters degree should be considered in
favour of the meritorious candidate such as the petitioner
or should it be used to oust a meritorious and experienced
candidate as that of the petitioner?

C. Whether the respondent as per their own case has

13
contravened the Clause 13.0 of the 2010 UGC regulation
which provides that the qualification and selection
procedure for appointing the candidates under contractual
basis should be the same as those applicable to a regularly
appointed teacher. The term Good academic record
defined by the university on 28.10.2010. The notification
for the post of Associate professor in English in contract
basis was issued on 05.05.2012. In the said notification the
respondent university mentioned about consistently good
academic record as eligible criteria. This petitioner
applied for the post. The respondent university after
satisfying appellants eligibility conditions by rightly
applying the method selected him in interview for the post
of Associate professor in English on contract basis.
However they failed to apply the same method for the
regular post. As per the clause 13.1 of the 2010 UGC
regulations the respondent university is not permitted to
have different standards for contractual post and regular
one. Hence the respondent university also accepted the
petitioners eligibility criteria. The respondent cannot be
allowed to blow both hot and cold at the same time
contravening the UGC regulations.

14
3.

DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3 (2)

The petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave to
appeal has been filed Arising out of final Judgment and Common
Order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Honble High Court of
Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 881 and 882 of 2014.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:

The annexures P/1 to P/3 produced along with the present Special
Leave Petition are true copies of their originals and were a part of
the pleadings and the records of the case in the High Court below
against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in the present
Special Leave Petition.

5.

GROUNDS
A) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that
actions of the respondent in not calling for the interview is highly
arbitrary illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution
of India.

B) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that the
petitioner is already working as Assistant Professor of English
with respondent university on contract basis. The eligible criteria
for this post (Assistant Professor of English) on contract basis
and permanent post is being one and the same. The respondent
university having selected the petitioner for the post on contract

15
basis but failed to call the petitioner even for interview for the
same post for permanent status is nothing but illegal but for
various reasons.

C) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that

two public examinations or degree preceding the qualifying
Masters degree would include all the degrees before the
qualifying Masters degree or it means only the UG degree and
the HSC-Intermediate?

D) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that two
public examinations or degree preceding the qualifying
Masters degree should be considered in favour of the
meritorious candidate such as the petitioner or should it be used
to oust a meritorious and experienced candidate as that of the
petitioner?

E) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that the
respondent as per their own case has contravened the Clause 13.0
of the 2010 UGC regulation which provides that the qualification
and selection procedure for appointing the candidates under
contractual basis should be the same as those applicable to a
regularly appointed teacher. The term Good academic record
defined by the university on 28.10.2010. The notification for the
post of Associate professor in English in contract basis was

16
issued on 05.05.2012. In the said notification the respondent
university mentioned about consistently good academic record
as eligible criteria. This petitioner applied for the post. The
respondent university after satisfying appellants eligibility
conditions by rightly applying the method selected him in
interview for the post of Associate professor in English on
contract basis. However they failed to apply the same method for
the regular post. As per the clause 13.1 of the 2010 UGC
regulations the respondent university is not permitted to have
different standards for contractual post and regular one. Hence
the respondent university also accepted the petitioners eligibility
criteria. The respondent cannot be allowed to blow both hot and
cold at the same time contravening the UGC regulations.

F) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that the
respondent university failed to appreciate

the academic and

other relevant credentials of the petitioner.

G) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that the
respondent university failed to consider the fact that the
petitioner is eligible for the post for Associate Professor and
hence he is well qualified for the post for Associate Professor.
Further the respondent university failed to consider my
experience and publication works.

17
H) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that the
respondent university called 10 people for interview for the post
of Assistant professors in English under SC/ST category. All the
persons are less qualified than the petitioner.

I) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that as

per clause 5.4 of the Employment notification is an arbitrary
provision which is retained only in order to provide the
respondents with the scope to discriminate candidates. The said
clause prescribed qualifications and Experience are minimum
and the mere fact that the candidate possesses the same will not
entitle him/ her for being called for the interview. The university
reserves its right to restrict the candidates to be called for the
interview to a reasonable number on the basis of the qualification
and experience higher than the minimum prescribed as decided
by the duly constituted screening Committees. And approved by
the competent authority. Call letters for attending the interview
will be sent only to the shortlisted candidates by speed post or
registered post or courier service and also by email. No
correspondence will be made with the applicants who were not
short listed/ not called for interview. On a close perusal of the
same it is made clear that the petitioner is highly qualified than
the minimum standard as prescribed by the respondent and
therefore the petitioner ought to have call for the interview.

18
J) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that the
persons having qualification less than that of the petitioner have
been called for interview by the respondent university. But failed
to consider the letter dated 21.12.2012 sent by the petitioner to
the respondent and Vice Chancellor of the respondent university
seeking them to call the petitioner for interview. The petitioner
have clearly mentioned in the said letter that the persons having
fewer qualifications were shortlisted for interview. However the
respondent did not even reply to above referred letter. The
petitioner has also sent an email to the respondent university on
31.12.12 again seeking them to issue a call letter for interview.

K) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that

certain people in the administration does not want bright and
qualified persons belonging to SC/ST category to be appointed
because it would in due course affect their promotional chance.
That is the reason petitioner though being more qualified than
other 10 candidates belonging to SC/ST category, he is not
appointed.

L) Because the Hon'ble High court has wrongly appreciated the

percentage of marks the petitioner obtained in UG and HSC.
However there is no mention of the petitioners second masters
degree. Even though the petitioner mentioned all the facts in his
petition and the reply statement the learned courts below failed to

19
notice all these facts and wrongly concluded that the petitioner
lacks the eligibility criteria under the term good academic record
as defined by the respondent university.

M)Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that as

per the Clause 13.0 of the 2010 UGC regulation the qualification
and selection procedure for appointing the candidates under
contractual basis should be the same as those applicable to a
regularly appointed teacher. The term Good academic record
defined by the university on 28.10.2010. The notification for the
post of Associate professor in English in contract basis was
issued on 05.05.2012. In the said notification the respondent
university mentioned about consistently good academic record
as eligible criteria. This petitioner applied for the post. The
respondent university after satisfying petitioners eligibility
conditions by rightly applying the method selected him in
interview for the post of Associate professor in English on
contract basis. However they failed to apply the same method for
the regular post. As per the clause 13.1 of the 2010 UGC
regulations the respondent university is not permitted to have
different standards for contractual post and regular one. Hence
the respondent university also accepted the petitioners eligibility
criteria. The courts below has failed to appreciate this crucial
fact.

20
N) Because the Hon'ble High court has failed to appreciate that as
per clause 3.8.0, 2010 UGC regulation states about the
Recruitment and qualification.
The Ph.D Degree shall be a mandatory qualification for all
candidates to be appointed as associate professors through direct
recruitment
As per clause 3.8.0 The Ph.D Degree shall be a mandatory
qualification for all candidates to be appointed as associate
professors through direct recruitment.
Hence the minimum eligibility for associate professor through
direct recruitment is only a Ph.D. Degree in relevant subject.
The conditions mentioned in the clause 4.3.0 only can be
preferential requirements among the candidates. S a candidate
having Ph.D. Degree is eligible for the post of Associate
professor but the selection will be based on the preferential other
requirements mentioned in the clause 4.3.0 the learned Judge
failed to notice this fact.
6.
A.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

The petitioner is the most qualified candidate amongst the 10
candidate selected in the SC/ST category, he is deprived of his
employment and the respondent are forcefully pursuing their
owes to keep the petitioner outside employment. Therefore they
may appoint those less qualified candidate which would render
the present Special Leave Petition meaningless.

21
7.

MAIN PRAYER:
In the circumstances, it is, therefore, most humbly and
respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be
pleased to:
(a)

Grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India Arising out of final Judgment and
Common Order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Honble
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos.
881 and 882 of 2014;and

(b)

Pass such other or further order/ orders as this Honble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

8.

PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

In the circumstances, it is, therefore, most humbly and
respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be
pleased to:
(a) Grant an Ex-parte Stay of the final Judgment and Common
Order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Honble High Court of
Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 881 and 882 of
2014;
(b) Grand an Ex-parte Stay of the impugned appointment
proceedings undertaken by the respondents and

22
(c) Pass such order or orders as this Honble Court may deem it
fit and proper.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Filed by
Place: New Delhi
Filed On:13.04.2015
(S.GOWTHAMAN)
Advocate for the petitioner

23
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.______ OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
Dr. Bolleddu Sivanagaiah

Petitioner
VERSUS-

The Registrar,
Central University of Tamil Nadu

Respondent

CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the
pleadings before the Court, whose order is challenged and the other
documents relied upon in those proceeding. No additional facts or
grounds have been taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave
Petition.

It

is

further

certified

that

the

copies

of

the

documents/annexures attached to the Special Leave Petition are

necessary to answer the question of law relied in the petition or to make
out grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for consideration of
this Honble Court. This certificate is given on the basis of the
instructions given by the Petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of
the S.L.P.
Filed by
NEW DELHI
(S.GOWTHAMAN)
Dated: 13.04.2015

Advocate for the Petitioner

24
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.________ OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development
Corporation Limited
A.M.Abdul Rahim and Anr.

Petitioner

VERSUSRespondents
AFFIDAVIT

I, S. Jeyakumar S/o Late. Subburaj aged about ____ years,

Residing at 2/88, K. Venkateshwarapuram Village, South Street,
Kalugumalai, Thoothukudi, District, present at New Delhi, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:1.

I am the petitioner in the above noted matter and as such

competent to swear this Affidavit. I have read and understood the

contents of the Special Leave Petition.
2.

The accompanying Synopsis, List of Dates and Events (Pages B

to ____) and the facts stated in para 1 to 8 of Special Leave Petition

(Pages _____ to _____) and I.As filed therein are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief, no part of it is false and nothing
material is concealed therefrom. That the annexures filed herewith are
true copies of their respective originals.
3.

That the petitioner has not filed any other Special Leave Petition

against the before this Honble Court.

DEPONENT

25
VERIFICATION:
I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents
made in para Nos. 1 to 3 of the above affidavit are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.
Verified at Chennai on this____day of December, 2014.
DEPONENT

26
ANNEXURE P/1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
W.P.NO.63 OF 2013
Dr.Bolleddu Sivanagaiah
S/o B.Sambaiah
Door No.7-120,
Thumuluru Post,
Kollipara Mandal,
Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh 522 304

..Petitioner
Versus

The Registrar
Central University of Tamil Nadu
Thanjavur road, Tiruvarur,
Tamil Nadu 610 004

..Respondent

AFFIDAVIT FILED BY B.SIVANAGAIAH

I, Dr.Bolledu Sivanagaiah, s/o B.Sambaiah, Door No.7-120, Thumuluru
Post, Kollipara Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 522 304
presently come down to Chennai do hereby solemnly affirm and
sincerely states as follows:1.

I am the petitioner and as such i am well aware of the facts and

circumstances of the petition.

2.

I further submit that the respondent University issued

Employment notice No.2/CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.06.2012 in
national news papers and as through their official website calling
application from the Prospective candidates for various posts

27
including the posts of Professors/ Associate Professor and
Assistant Professors for various faculties including English.
3.

I further state that I belong to Schedule caste Community am now

working as an Assistant Professor of English under the
re3spondent university since 11/07/2012. I have completed
Masters degree in English and worked till the month of April
2001. Then I joined in Dr.B.R.Ambedkar centenary Degree
college in June 2001 and I worked till t he month of April 2004.
During this period I have done my second masters degree in
English through distance mode. I completed my second
masters degree in English: on July 2004. Thereafter I joined as a
Lecturer in English in Nalanda degree college affiliated to
Acharya Nagarjuna University at Vijayawada on July 2004 to
31st March 2006. During this period I done my M.Phil programme
in English as a part time scholar. I was awarded M.Phil degree
on 25th June 2007. After completing my M.Phil I started to peruse
PH.D in English. I was awarded Doctorate in English on 24 th
February 2012. During the period of 2009 to 2012 I worked as
Assistant Professor of English in the Vignans lara institute of
technology and science affiliated to JNTU Kakinada.

4.

I further state that the respondent during the month of April 2012
issued a notification in news papers calling for Walk in
interview for the post of Assistant professor of English on
contract basis for the period of one year. I attended the interview

28
on 11th May 2012 and I was selected for the post of Assistant
Professor in English. The respondent issued an offer of
appointment letter dated 12/06/2012 to me. I joined the
respondent university on 11/07/2012 and working till now. I
submit that as per the notification I am fully eligible to apply for
the post of Associate professor and Assistant professor.
5.

The

respondent

university

issued

Employment

notice

No.2/CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.065.2012 for the posts including

the posts of Professors/ Associate Professor and Assistant
Professors for various faculties including English. I have applied
for the post of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor on
22.02.12 through online and the respondent university issued the
receipts as control ID No.708747, 708745 respectively.
6.

The respondent university after scrutinizing the applications from

various persons issued a list of candidates called for interview
which is published through official Website on 15.12.12. I humbly
submit that in the process the respondent university failed to act
in an impartial and transparent manner. Further it had called
person, having qualifications less than of mine for interview.

7.

I further submit that as per the above referred notification dated

06.06.2012 the eligibility criteria for the post of Associate
Professor of English is given below.

A)

For arts and humanities, sicences, social science, commerce,

education, languages law, journalism and mass communication:-

29
i. Good academic record with a Ph.D degree in the concerned/
allied / relevant disciplines.
ii. A masters degree with at least 55% of marks (or an equalant
grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed)
iii. A minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and / or
research in an academic/ research position equallent to that of
Assitant professor in a university, college or accredited research
institution/ industry excluding the period of Ph.D. research with
evidence of published works and a minimum of 5 publications
as books and/ or research/ policy papers.
iv. Contribution to educational innovation, design of a new
curricula and courses and technology mediated teaching
learning process with evidence of having guided doctoral
candidates and research students.
v. A minimum score as stipulated in the academic performance
indicator (API) based performance based appraisal system
(BBAS), st out in the UGC regulation 2010.
8.

I further state that my eligibility as per the norms mentioned in

the above referred notification of the respondent university.

i)

I have a Ph. D degree in English.

ii)

I have two masters Degree in English one with 53.4% and

another with 58%(As per the notifications of the respondent and
UGC regulation for maintenance of standards in higher education
2010 published the gazette of India on 18 th September 2010,

30
relaxation of 5% of marks may I provided to the SC/ST
candidates.)
iii)

I have eight years of teaching experience excluding the period of

my Doctorate (Ph.D) Programme. I have published 7 publications
so for and 5 more papers have been accepted for printing. My Ph.D
thesis also has been accepted for printing.

iv)

I have introduced a new teaching course called as CELT

(Centre for English Language Training) at VLITS where I worked
earlier. I alongwith 2 other teachers developed new syllabus for
English for IMSC students of the respondent university. I have
introduced new syllabus for fist M.A. English students on the
course of inter disciplinary philosophy.

v)

Under API and BBAS I have more than 350 scores. Minimum
score is 300.

9. I further submit that I was called interview in /Maulana Azad

national Urdu university (Central University) for the post of
Associate Professor of English under un served category vide
their letter dated 29th September 2011. Hence I am certainly eligible
for the post of Associate Professor of English in the respondent
university. The persons having qualification less than of mine have
been called for interview by the respondent university.
10. I further submit that as per the above referred notification dated
06.06.2012 the eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant
Professor of English is given below.

31
A) For arts and humanities, sciences, social science, commerce,
education, languages, law, journalism and mass communication:i)

Good academic record as defined by the concerned university

with at least 55% marks/ or an equivalent grade in a point scale
wherever grading system is followed at the masters degree level
in a relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equallent
degree from an accredited foreign university.

ii.

Besides full filing the above qualifications, the candidate must

have cleared the national eligibility test (NET) conducted by the
UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/
SET.

iii.

Not withstanding anything contained in sub clauses (i) and (ii)

this clause 4.4.1, candidates, who are, or have been awarded a
Ph.D degree in accordance with the UGC (Minimum standard
and procedures for award of Ph.D degree) Regulations, 2009
shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum
eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and
appointment of assistant professor or Equvallent position in
universities / collages/ institutions.

iv.

NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such masters

programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not
conducted.

11. I have applied for the post of Assistant Professor. I hereby submit
my eligibility as per the said norms.

32
i.

I have a Ph.D degree in English. I have two masters Degree in

English one with 53.4% and another with 58%. (As per UGC
regulation for maintenance of standards in higher education 2010
published in. the gazette of India on 18th September, 2010,
relaxation of 5% of marks may be provided to the SC/ST
candidates.)

ii. As per the Honble Supreme Courts order I have eligible marks in
NET conducted in June 2012. I have obtained 55% in paper I,
36% in paper II, 45.33% in paper III with an aggregate
percentage of 45.14. Whereas the minimum eligibility is 40% for
SC/ST candidates.
iii. I have a Ph.D degree in English in February 2012 as per 2009 UGC
regulations. I have eight years of teaching experience excluding the
period of my Doctorate (Ph.D) Programme. I have published 7
publications so for and 5 more papers have been accepted for
printing. My PH.D. thesis also has been accepted for printing.
iv. I have introduced a new teaching course called as CELT (Centre
for English Language Training) at VLITS where I worked earlier. I
along with 2 other teachers developed new syllabus for English for
IMSC students of the respondent university. I have introduced new
syllabus for first M.A. English students on the course of inter
disciplinary phiolosophy.
v. Under API and BBAS I have more than 350 scores. Minimum
score is 300.

33
12. The petitioner submits that as per the clause 5.4 of the Employment
notification the prescribed Qualifications and Experience are
minimum and the mere fact that the candidate possess the same will
not entitle him/ her for being called for the interview. The
university reserves its right to restrict the candidates to be called for
the interview to a reasonable number on the basis of the
qualification and experience higher than the minimum prescribed
as decided by the duly constituted screening Committees. And
approved by the competent authority. Call letters for attending the
interview will be sent only to the shortlisted candidates by speed
post or registered post or courier service and also by email. No
correspondence will be made with the applicants who were not
short listed/ not called for interview.
13. The persons having qualification less than of mine have been called
for interview by the respondent university. I have even sent a letter
dated 21.12.2012 to the respondent and vice Chancellor of the
respondent university seeking them to call me for interview. I have
mentioned in the said letter that the persons having fewer
qualifications were shortslished for interview.

The respondent

didnt even reply to my above referred letter. The petitioner has

also sent an email to the respondent university on 31.12.12 again
seeking them to issue a call letter for interview. Hence I have
preferred this writ petition on the following:-

34
GROUNDS
A) The action of the respondent in not calling for the interview is
highly arbitrary illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of
Constitution of India.

B) It is submitted that I am already working as Assistant Professor of

English with respondent university on contract basis. The eligible
criteria for this post (Assistant Professor of English) on contrary
basis and permanent post is being one and the same. The
respondent university having selected me for ht post on contract
basis but failed to call me even for interview for the same post for
permanent status is nothing but illegal but for various reasons.
C) The respondent university failed to appreciate my academic and
other relevant credentials.

D) The respondent university failed to consider the fact that I am

eligible for the post for Associate Professor and hence I am well
qualified for the post for Associate Professor.

E) The respondent university failed to consider my experience and

publication works.

F) The respondent university called 10 people for intereveiw for the

post of Assistant professors in English under SC/ST category. All
the persons are less qualified than me.

35
G) The petitioner submits that as per clause 5.4 of the Employment
notification the prescribed qualifications and Experience are
minimum and the mere fact that the candidate possesses the same
will not enetile him/ her for being called for the interview. The
unieristy reserves its right to restrict the candidates to be called for
the interview to a reasonable number on the basis of the
qualification and experience higher than the minimum prexdribed
as decided by the duly constituted screening Committees. And
approved b the competent authority. Call letters for attending the
interview ill be sent only to the shortlisted candidates by speed post
or registered post or courier service and also by email. No
correspondence will be made with the applicants who were not
short listed/ not called for interview. On a close perusal of the same
it is made clear that the petitioner is highly qualified than the
minimum standard as prescribed by the respondent and therefore
the petitioner ought to have call for the interview.

H) The persons having qualification less than of mine have been called
for interview by the respondent university. I have even sent a lette3r
dated 21.12.2012 to the respondent and Vice Chancellor of the
respondent university seeking them to call me for interview. I have
mentioned in the said letter that the persons having fewer
qualifications were shortlisted for interview. I have mentioned in
the said letter that the persons having fewer qualifications were

36
shortlisted for interview. the respondent did not even reply to my
above referred letter. The petitioner has also sent an email to the
respondent university on 31.12.12 again seeking them to issue a call
letter for interview.
The interview is to be conducted on 3.1.13 and 4.1.13
Under these circumstances it is prayed that this Honble High Court
may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview to
be held on 3rd and 4th January 2013 for the post of Assistant
Professor of English in schedule caste category pursuant to the
Employment notice No.2/CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.06.2012 issued
by the respondent and consequently direct the respondent to
consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant
Professor of English in Schedule caste category and thus render
justice.

Under these circumstances it is prayed that this Honble High Court

may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview to
be held on 3rd and 4th January 2013 for the post of Associate
professor of English in General category pursuant to the
Employment notice No.2/ CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.06.2012 issued
by the respondent and consequently direct the respondent to
consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Associate
Professor of English in General category and thus render Justice.

37
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai this the 2nd January 2013 and the
contents of the affidavit has been read and explained to the
deponent and affixed his signature in my presence

Before Me

Advocate: Chennai

//True Copy//

38

ANNEXURE P/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date:21.03.2014
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.Raja
Writ Petition Nos.62 and 63 of 2013
Dr. Bolleddu Sivanagaiah

Petitioner in both the Was

Versus

The Registrar
Central University of Tamil Nadu
Thanjavur Road
Tiruvarur
Tamil Nadu 610 004
Respondent in both the Was/
Prayer in W.P.No.62 of 2013: This petition has been filed seeking writ
of Mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to
participate in the interview to be held on 3 rd and 4th January 2013 for
the post of Assistant Professor of English in Scheudle caste category
pursuant to the employment notice no.2/ CUTNT/T/2012 dated
06.06.2012 issued by the respondent and consequently direct the
respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of
Assistant Professor of English in schedule caste category.

Prayer in W.P.No.63 of 2013: This Petition has been filed seeking a writ
of Mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to

39
participate in the interview to be held on 3 rd and 4th January 2013 for
the post of Assistant professor of English in General category (in
W.P.No.62/13) Associate professor of English in General Category (in
W.P.No.63

of

2013)

pursuant

to

the

Employment

notice

No.2/CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.06.2012 issued by the respondent and

consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for
appointment to the post of assistant professor of English in General
category (in W.P.No.62/2013) and Associate professor of English in
General Category (in W.P.no.63/2013).
For appellant in both the WPs

Mr. S. Saravanan

For respondent in both the WPs Mr.Maimoona Badsha

COMMON ORDER
This Writ Petition in W.P.No.62 of 2013 has been filed praying for
issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to permit the
petitioner to participate in the interview to be held on 3rd and 4th January
2013 for the post of Assistant Professor of English in Schedule caste
category pursuant to the employment notice no.2/ CUTNT/T/2012
dated 06.06.2012 issued by the respondent and consequently direct the
respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of
Assistant Professor of English in schedule caste category.

2. Thee Writ Petition in W.P.No.63 of 2013 has been filed by the

petitioner praying for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the
respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview to be

40
held on 3rd and 4th January 2013 for the post of Assistant professor of
English in General category pursuant to the Employment notice
No.2/CUTNT/T/2012 dated 06.06.2012 issued by the respondent and
consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for
appointment to the post of assistant professor of English in General
category and Associate professor of English in General Category.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner who belongs to the schedule caste community is now
working as an Assistant Professor of English under the respondent
University since 11.07.2012. The petitioner has completed his Masters
degree in English during the academic years 1996-1998 and thereafter
he had joined in Vidwen Junior College as Junior lecturer in English
and worked till the moth of April 2001. The petitioner had then joined
in D.R.B.R.Amedkar Centenary Degree College in June, 2001 and
worked till the month of April, 2004. During the said period he had
pursued his second masters degree in English through distance mode.
Pursuant thereto, he had joined as a Lecturer in English in Naladna
Degree College affiliated to Acharya Nagarjune University at
Viajayawada from July, 2004 to 31st March 2006. During the said
period, the petitioner has completed his M.Phil Programme the
petitioner started to pursue his Ph.d.in English and he was awarded
Doctorate in English on 24.02.2012. During the said period of 2009 to
2012 the petitioner worked as Assistant Professor of English in the
Vignans Lara Institute of Technology and science affiliated to JNTU

41
Kakinada. While so, the respondent issued a notification in news paper
calling for Walk-in interview for the post of Assistant Professor of
English on contract basis for the period of one year and he was also
attended the interview on 11.05.2012 and he was selected for the post
of Assistant professor in English. The respondent issued an offer of
appointment letter dated 12.06.2012 to the petitioner and the petitioner
jointed the respondent university on 11.07.2012 and working till now.
As per the notification the petitioner was fully eligible to apply for the
post of Associate professor and Assistant professor. The respondent
university issued Employment Notice No.2/CUTNT/T/2012 dated
06.06.2012 for the posts including the post of professors/ Associate
professor and Assistant professors for various faculties including
English. The petitioner has applied for the post of Associate Professor
and Assistant Professor on 22.06.2012 through only and the respondent
university issued the receipts as control ID Nos.708747, 708745
respectively. The

respondent

university

after

scrutinizing

the

applications from various persons issued a list of candidates called for

interview which is published through official website on 15.12.2012.
but the petitioners name was not shown in the list of candidates calling
for interview. When the petitioner was able to satisfy this Court that the
has obtained Ph.D., decree on 24.02.2012 and therefore he need not
pass N.E.T. Certificate, this court by an order 3.01.2013 had directed
the university to interview the petitioner for the post for Assistant
Professor both under the General category as well as schedule caste
category in respect of the Employment Notification dated 06.06.2012

42
and that the marks of the interview need not be published until further
orders from this Court. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner has participated in the interview held on 3rd
and 4th March 2013 on the basis of the qualification possessed by the
petitioner and hence a further direction shall be given to the respondent
to consider the case of the petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the petitioner has not possessed experience of guiding
doctoral research students which is necessary for a candidate applying
fro the post of Associate Professor as specified by the UGC
Regulations. He further contended that the screening Committee, while
screening the applications submitted by the candidates, disqualified
those who do not posses average marks of 50% at the Higher
Secondary and Graduate level, however, in the case of SC/ST
candidates, relaxation of 5% marks was granted. The petitioner has also
applied under the reserved category of SC for the post of Assistant
Professor in English and Associate Professor in English and as per his
application, he scored 40.6% and 44.5% in HSC (intermediate) and
Graduation (BA-Lit) respectively. Since the petitioner has not obtained
average marks, he was disqualified by the screening Committee. But,
without bringing the above said facts to the notice of this court, the
petitioner has wrongly obtained an interim order on 03.01.2013 with a
direction to the respondent to interview the petitioner on 3rd and 4th
January of 2013 for the post of Assistant Professor in English and

43
Assistant Professor in English both under the General and Schedule
caste category. Pursuant to the above said interim direction, the
petitioner was also permitted to attend the interview. But as per the
UGC Regulations, when he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria, he is
automatically ineligible to be considered for the post of Assistant
Professor and on that basis he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. This court fully agrees with the submissions made by the learned
counsel for respondent. As the petitioner had secured 40.6% marks in
HSC (intermediate) and 44.5% of marks in Graduation, which are far
below to the eligibility criteria mentioned in Clause 5.18(e) of the
notification , it is not known as to how he was able to get an order from
this Court on 03.01.2013 with a direction to the respondent to permit
him to participate in the interview held on 3rd and 4th January of 2013
for the post of Assistant Professor in English and Associate Professor in
English both under the General and Schedule Caste category. In
addition thereto, 10 other candidates, hailing from the same reserved
SC/ ST category, have possessed all the qualifications prescribed by the
UGC, hence, they have met the percentage of marks under good
academic record prescribed by the University. In view of the fact that
the petitioner did not fulfil the minimum requirement he was rightly not
shortlisted. Surprisingly, since the above said fact were not brought to
the notice of this Court, he obtained an interim direction from this
Court on 03.01.2013 to take part in the interview and the respondent
also as per the order of this Court, permitted the petitioner to participate

44
in the interview, but the results of the interview was withheld in view of
the pendency of the writ petition.

Therefore for the aforesaid reasons, this court finding no merit or

substance in the writ petition, is inclined to dismiss the writ petition
and accordingly it is dismissed and the respondent is permitted to
publish the results forthwith. No costs.

Sd/Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

45
ANNEXURE P/3
MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF WRIT APPEAL
(UNDRF CLAUSE XV OF LETTERS PATENT)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
W.A.No.882 of 2014
Against
W.P.NO.63 OF 2013
Dr.Bolleddu Sivanagaiah
S/o B.Sambaiah
Door No.7-120,
Thumuluru Post,
Kollipara Mandal,
Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh 522 304

..Petitioner/Appellant
Versus

The Registrar
Central University of Tamil Nadu
Thanjavur road, Tiruvarur,
Tamil Nadu 610 004
..Respondent/Respondent
The address for service of notices and processes on the appellant is that
of his counsel Mr.S.Saravanan, New No.273, Old No.130, Room No.7,
II Floor, Thambu Street, Chennai 01
The address for the service of notices and processes on the respondents
is the same as stated above.
The above named Appellant/ petitioner prefers this Memorandum of
Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order dated 21.03.2014 passed by

46
Honble Mr.Justice T.Raja in W.P.No.63 of 2013 on the following
among other.
GROUNDS
1.

The order of the learned judged is against law and is based on

misconception of facts.

2.

The learned single judge wrongly held that the petitioner lacks
eligibility criteria for the post of Associate professor in
English.

3.

The learned judge dismissed the writ petition solely relying on

the contentions of the respondent. The learned Judge miserably
failed to appreciate the facts and points put forward by the
Appellant.

4.

The learned Judge failed to notice that the Appellant got

eligibility criteria for the post of Associate professor in
English as per the UGC rules.

5.

As per the Employment notice NO.2/CUTNT/T/2012 dated

06.06.2012 issued by the respondent university the eligibility
criteria for the post of Associate professor of English is given
below.
A)

For arts and humanities, sicences, social science,

commerce, education, languages law, journalism and mass
communication:-

47
i)

Good academic record with a Ph.D degree in the

concerned/ allied / relevant disciplines.

ii)

A masters degree with at least 55% of marks (or an

equalant grade in a point scale wherever grading
system is followed)

iii)

A minimum of eight years of experience of teaching

and / or research in an academic/ research position
equallent to that of Assitant professor in a
university, college or accredited research institution/
industry excluding the period of Ph.D. research with
evidence of published works and a minimum of 5
publications as books and/ or research/ policy
papers.

iv) Contribution to educational innovation, design of a

new curricula and courses and technology mediated
teaching learning process with evidence of having
guided doctoral candidates and research students.
v)

A minimum score as stipulated in the academic

performance indicator (API) based performance
based appraisal system (BBAS), st out in the UGC
regulation 2010.

The appellants eligibility criteria as per the norms mentioned in the

above referred notification of the respondent university is given below.

48
i) The appellant has a Ph.D degree in English.
ii) The appellant has two masters Degree in English one with 53.4%
and another with 58%. (As per UGC regulation for maintenance of
standards in higher education 2010 published in. the gazette of
India on 18th September, 2010, relaxation of 5% of marks may be
provided to the SC/ST candidates.)
ii) The appellant has eight years of teaching experience excluding the
period of my Doctorate (Ph.D) Programme. I have published 7
publications so for and 5 more papers have been accepted for
printing. My PH.D. thesis also has been accepted for printing.

iii) The appellant introduced a new teaching course called as CELT

(Centre for English Language Training) at VLITS where I worked
earlier. I along with 2 other teachers developed new syllabus for
English for IMSC students of the respondent university. I have
introduced new syllabus for first M.A. English students on the
course of inter disciplinary phiolosophy.
v) Under API and BBAS I have more than 350 scores. Minimum
score is 300.
Hence the appellant is well within the eligibility criteria for the post
of Associate Professor in English. The learned judge failed to
appreciate this evidence.

49
6. The learned judge in his order mentioned that the appellant lacks
the eligibility criteria under good academic record as defined by
the Respondent University. As per the respondent universitys
definition the terms Good academic record means.
The candidate must have obtained on an average of 50% marks in
each of the two public examinations/ degree immediately preceding
the masters degree.
Further 5% of marks given as relaxation to the candidates belong to
the SC/ST category.
The appellant belong to the SC/ST category and his academic
credentials are given below.
The appellant has completed 2 masters degree and one UG in English
S.No.
Degree
1.
B.A. in English
2.
M.A. in English
3.
M.A. in English
Therefore the appellant meets

Year
Percentage
1993 1996
44.56%
1996 1998
53.4 %
2002 2004
58 %
eligible criteria under Good Academic

record as defined by the respondent university. The learned Single

Judge failed to appreciate this fact.
7.

The learned judge just mentioned about percentage of marks the

appellant obtained in UG and HSC. Absolutely there is no
mention of the appellants second masters degree. Even though
the appellant mentioned all the facts in his petition and the reply
statement the learned judge failed to notice all these facts and
wrongly concluded that the appellant lacks the eligibility criteria

50
under the term good academic record as defined by the
respondent university.
8.

As per the Clause 13.0 of the 2010 UGC regulation the

qualification and selection procedure for appointing the
candidates under contractual basis should be the same as those
applicable to a regularly appointed teacher. The term Good
academic record defined by the university on 28.10.2010. The
notification for the post of Associate professor in English in
contract basis was issued on 05.05.2012. In the said notification
the respondent university mentioned about consistently good
academic record as eligible criteria. This appellant applied for
the post. The respondent university after satisfying appellants
eligibility conditions by rightly applying the method selected him
in interview for the post of Associate professor in English on
contract basis. However they failed to apply the same method for
the regular post. As per the clause 13.1 of the 2010 UGC
regulations the respondent university is not permitted to have
different standards for contractual post and regular one. Hence
the respondent university also accepted the appellants eligibility
criteria. The learned judge failed to appreciate this crucial fact.

9.

As per clause 3.8.0, 2010 UGC regulation states about the

Recruitment and qualification.

51
The Ph.D Degree shall be a mandatory qualification for all
candidates to be appointed as associate professors through direct
recruitment
As per clause 3.8.0 The Ph.D Degree shall be a mandatory
qualification for all candidates to be appointed as associate
professors through direct recruitment.
Hence the minimum eligibility for associate professor through
direct recruitment is only a Ph.D. Degree in relevant subject.
The conditions mentioned in the clause 4.3.0 only can be
preferential requirements among the candidates. S a candidate
having Ph.D. Degree is eligible for the post of Associate
professor but the selection will be based on the preferential other
requirements mentioned in the clause 4.3.0 the learned Judge
failed to notice this fact.
It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Honble court may be
pleased to set aside the order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the learned
Judge in W.P.Nos.63 of 2013 and allow this writ appeal and pass such
other orders as this Honble Court may fit and prop0er and thus render
justice.

Counsel for the Appellant/ Petitioner

Memo of Valuation
Value of the Writ Petition

Incapable of Valuation

Court fee Paid

Rs.200/- only

52
Value of Writ Appeal

Incapable of valuation

Court fee paid

Rs.200/- only

Dated at Chennai on this 12th day of June 2014

Counsel for the Appellant/ Petitioner

//True Copy//

53
ANNEXURE P/1
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TAMIL NADU
(Established by an Act of Parliament, 2009)
Thanjavur Road, Thiruvarur - 610 004 :
04366 225205/220258
Employment Notice No.2/CUTN/T/2012
Date: 06.06.2012
CUTN invites Online application for the following Regular and
Backlong Vacancies
Subje
ct
Code

Subject

Category
of the
subject (for
referring
Essential
qualificatio
n for the
post
concerned)

Name of the post / Pay Band (PB)

+ Academic Grade Pay (AGP) /
No. of Vacancies (Including
reserved positions shown in
brackets), Age for retirement on
superannuation: 65 years (at
present)
Profess
or (Rs.
3740067000
+ AGP
10000)
4
01(UR

Associat
e
Professo
r
(Rs.3740
0-67000
+ AGP
9000)
5
01(UR)

Assistant
Professor
(Rs. 1560039100 + AGP
6000)

01(UR)

01 (UR)

1
CHM

2
Chemistry

3
Sciences

6
04 (UR-2,
SC-1, ST-1

COM

Computer
Sciences

Sciences

ECO

Economics

Social
Sciences

01(UR

02(UR2)

04 (UR-3,
OBC-1)

EDU

Education

Social
Sciences

01(UR

01(UR)

02(OBC-1,
SC-1)

ENG

English

Langauges

01(SC

02(UR2)

05 (UR-3,
OBC-1 &
SC-1

54
ENS

Environmental
Studies

Sciences

01(UR)

02(UR-2)

LAW

Legal Studies/
LAW

Social
Sciences

01(ST)

01 (ST)

LIS

Life Sciences

Sciences

02(UR2)

04 (UR-2,
OBC-1 &
SC-1)

LIN

Linguistics

Sciences

01(UR)

01 (UR)

MAT

Mathematics

Sciences

MMC Media & Mass Social

Communication Sciences

02(UR-1 02 (OBC-1 &

& SCSC-1)
1))
02(UR-1 02 (UR-2)
& SC-1)

MUS

Music

Social
Sciences

01(UR)

02 (UR-1 &
OBC-1

PHY

Physics

Sciences

01(UR)

03 (UR-1,
OBC-1 &
SC-1)

SOS

Social Sciences

Social
Sciences

02(UR2)

04 (UR-3 &
ST-1)

TML

Tamil

Language

01(UR)

02 (UR-1 &
SC-1)

21

39#

Sub Total
Total

01(UR

01(UR

06

66