PAGE 52

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 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 inMr. S. Sathiachandran

both the WAs

For Mr. S. Saravanan

For respondent in

Mr. T. Ravikumar

both the WAs

COMMON JUDGMENT

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

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.

2For the purpose of brevity and clarity, the parties are referred to as per their litigative status in the instant appeals.

3The 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).

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.

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 HSC-Intermediate)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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 CourtIn this Court

AppellantPetitioner

Vs.

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

Respondent

To,

The Honble Chief Justice of India and his Companion Justices of the Honble Supreme Court of India.

The humble petition of the petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH1. 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 LAWA. 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 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

A. 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.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 (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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.______ OF 2015IN 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

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

Petitioner

VERSUS-

A.M.Abdul Rahim and Anr. Respondents

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

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

ANNEXURE P/1IN 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.SIVANAGAIAHI, 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 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 24th 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 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:-

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 18th September 2010, 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.

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.

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.

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:-

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.

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 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.

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//

ANNEXURE P/2IN 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 3rd 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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//

ANNEXURE P/3MEMORANDUM 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 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:-

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.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.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.DegreeYearPercentage

1.B.A. in English 1993 199644.56%

2.M.A. in English1996 199853.4 %

3.M.A. in English2002 200458 %

Therefore the appellant meets 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 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.

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

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//

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

Subject CodeSubjectCategory of the subject (for referring Essential qualification 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)

Professor (Rs. 37400- 67000 + AGP 10000)Associate Professor (Rs.37400-67000 + AGP 9000)Assistant Professor (Rs. 15600-39100 + AGP 6000)

123456

CHMChemistrySciences01(UR01(UR)04 (UR-2, SC-1, ST-1

COMComputer Sciences

Sciences01(UR)01 (UR)

ECOEconomicsSocial Sciences

01(UR02(UR-2)04 (UR-3, OBC-1)

EDUEducationSocial Sciences

01(UR01(UR)02(OBC-1, SC-1)

ENGEnglish

Langauges01(SC02(UR-2)05 (UR-3, OBC-1 & SC-1

ENSEnvironmental Studies

Sciences01(UR)02(UR-2)

LAWLegal Studies/ LAW

Social Sciences01(ST)01 (ST)

LISLife Sciences

Sciences01(UR02(UR-2)04 (UR-2, OBC-1 & SC-1)

LINLinguistics

Sciences01(UR)01 (UR)

MATMathematicsSciences02(UR-1 & SC-1))02 (OBC-1 & SC-1)

MMCMedia & Mass CommunicationSocial Sciences

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

MUSMusicSocial Sciences

01(UR)02 (UR-1 & OBC-1

PHYPhysicsSciences

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

SOSSocial SciencesSocial Sciences

01(UR02(UR-2)04 (UR-3 & ST-1)

TMLTamilLanguage

01(UR)02 (UR-1 & SC-1)

Sub Total062139#

Total66