Madras High Court Forms 2-Member Committee to Look Into ‘Irregularities’ In Appointment of Assistant Professors in Institutions of Pachiappa’s Trust

A mass level of faculty recruitment to the post of assistant professors has taken place. Madras High Court constituted with a 2-member committee to make a detailed report on the appointments of 254 candidates to the post of Assistant Professors in the institutions of the Pachiappa’s Trust pursuant to the recruitment notifications dated 12.12.2013 and 18.02.2014.  

Former Madras High Court Judge Justice B Gokuldas will be the Chairman of the committee and Dr. Freeda Gnana Rani, Ex-Principal of Quaid-e-Millath Government College for Women will be the other member of the committee. This committee will investigate the process of how the appointment of the assistant professors in all the educational institutions which are affiliated to one of the topmost Trusts in Madras taken place, verify and analyze the procedure and accordingly prepare a report and submit it to the High Court.

The current bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shafiq directed the committee to investigate the requisite qualifications and eligibility criteria as prescribed under the recruitment notifications under which the appointments were made and to investigate the qualification and other eligibility criteria of all the appointees to see if they are eligible or not. The committee is to function from August 7 and all the necessary documents are to be produced by the appointees before August 19, in person. After scrutinizing all the documents and considering all the details, the committee has been directed to submit the report confidentially in a sealed cover before the court on or before September 27.

Instead of the prepared report, appeals had been placed before the High Court claiming that a former single-bench should not be included in the appointment committee and further; declaring the appointment of 254 Assistant Professors in colleges managed by Pachiappa Trust as null and void. After facing such backlash, Justice B Gokuldas (single bench judge constituting the appointment committee) himself contended that since it was not possible to segregate the tainted and non-tainted appointments, it was preferable to cancel the entire appointment. This order was later kept in abeyance.

Though the appellants challenged the single-judge order on the ground of maintainability and locus standi, the division bench noted that based on the factual background of the case and the documents/papers placed before the court, it cannot be denied that there are serious irregularities in the appointments made to the teaching faculties to various colleges and institutions of the trust. The court added that though some persons appointed may be well-qualified, most appointments are involved in controversy.

Thus, in P Elangovan and others v R Prema Latha and others, the Madras High Court gave the following judgement:

This Court, in such view of the matter, cannot shut its eyes to the glaring illegalities, allegations and irregularities that have brought the institutions of the Trust, ignominy, to say the least. It has also resulted in disillusionment and lack of trust in the method of selection, in public employment. This Court is, thus of the view that the writ petitions cannot be thrown out on hyper technical grounds of maintainability and locus standi. The writ petitioners have proved that they are aggrieved by their non-selection and that singular factor is, in the present case, enough to maintain these writ petitions, especially since they have made specific allegations of illegalities in the selection and appointment,” the court said.

NAME: DIVYA SALGAONKAR, 3^rd YEAR BLS VES COLLEGE OF LAW, MUMBAI intern under legal vidhiya

Admin