TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S. Anandhi, Dr. Brinda Viswanathan, Dr. L. Venkatachalam, Dr. Ajit Menon and Dr. Kripa Ananthpur) to the post of Associate Professor has been quashed. 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. 4. The Appellant Institute issued an advertisement calling for applications for the positions of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor. The said advertisement contained a description of the three qualifications required to be possessed by the candidate. Several persons including Respondent No. 1-writ Petitioner submitted application for appointment to the post of Associate Professor. The short-listing of the candidates was done by the Director of the Institute in consultation with the Chairman after informal consultation with senior Professors for evolving the criteria for short-listing of the candidates. The Selection Committee consisting of three noted Social Scientists as contemplated under the Rules conducted interviews and recommended a panel of five names. Thereafter, the Executive Council by Order dated 14.8.2006 approved the appointment of various persons to the posts of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor. Since the Institute had advertis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re totally contrary to the Rules, consequently, the order dated 14.8.2006 approving the appointment of the Respondent is liable to be quashed. 9. Hence, the present appeals by special leave. 10. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and the contesting Respondents including the selected candidates. 11. Mr. N.L. Rajah, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Institute, assailed the judgment passed by the Division Bench on various grounds. On the question of maintainability of the writ petition, it was submitted that the Appellant-Institute was not created by any statute. It was founded as a trust and no part of the corpus of the Institution was held by the Government. The participation of the State in the affairs of the Institution is not under any special statute. The Division Bench, therefore, has not correctly appreciated the facts and the law while coming to the conclusion that the Appellant Institute is a State. 12. Mr. Rajah, learned Counsel further contended that although the grievance of the writ Petitioner is that he has not been selected but no relief has been prayed to consider him to the said post. The relief claimed in the writ petition is on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the Director and the Chairman does not appear to be correct. From perusal of the documents available on record it appears that short-listing of the candidates was done by the Director in consultation with the Chairman and also senior Professors. Further it appears that the Committee constituted for the purpose of selection consists of eminent Scientists, Professor of Economic Studies and Planning and other members. The integrity of these members of the Committee has not been doubted by the Respondent-writ Petitioner. It is well settled that the decision of the Academic Authorities about the suitability of a candidate to be appointed as Associate Professor in a research institute cannot normally be examined by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. Having regard to the fact that the candidates so selected possessed all requisite qualifications and experience and, therefore, their appointment cannot be questioned on the ground of lack of qualification and experience. The High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision of the Institute in appointing Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the post of Associate Professor. 19. Be that as it may, the Respondent, without raising any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point. 22. In Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486, similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that: 9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the Petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being Respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The Petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the Petitioners as well as the contesting Respondents concerned. Thus the Petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the re....