'All Is Not Well As Regards The Procedure Followed By NIT': Madras HC Sets Aside Appointment Of Asst Professor In Dept Of Architecture

Pointing towards the opacity with regards to the selection process followed by the National Institute of Technology (Tiruchirapalli) for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Architecture, the Madras High Court has directed the institute to issue a fresh call for filling the vacancies.

It has also set aside the appointment of one S. Amalan Sigmund Kaushik to the said post.

The bench of Dr Justice Anita Sumanth observed,

'all is not well as regards the method, methodology as well as procedure followed by NIT, in effecting appointments, at least with regard to the Department of Architecture'.

The petitioner had challenged an advertisement of NIT in 2017 calling applications for the post of Assistant Professors in various departments including the Department of Architecture. However, the court restricted the challenge to the appointment of Assistant Professor in Architecture alone (as the petitioner's application was for a post in the said department), and the writ petition with regards to the appointment of 35 other Assistant Professors was dismissed. 

Having done that, the court was left with two questions: i) Eligibility of petitioner to be appointed to the said post, ii) the legality of the concluded appointment of the Assistant Professor who was chosen by NIT.

Dr Justice Anita Sumanth observed that NIT is governed by the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007 [NITSER Act] and the First Statutes framed under the provisions of the said Act.

Clause 23 of the First Statutes talk about the mode and method of appointment to administrative, technical and academic posts by the Board of Governors. Clause 7 elaborates upon the qualifications for the appointments to the position of faculty in the Department of Architecture specifically. Clause 7 mentions that M.Arch or M.Plan with adequate professional experience as the essential qualification for faculty at the level of Assistant Professor.

Another important reference would be the qualifications prescribed in Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 1983 issued in pursuance of Section 83 of the Architects Act, 1972. Clause 2 of the said regulations states that the qualification for a Reader or an Assistant professor is a B.Arch or equivalent, with seven years' experience, or an M.Arch or equivalent with five years' experience. The note appended thereto also mentions that the Council of Architecture can deem any qualification for an architect as sufficient under Section 25 of the Architects Act.

The person appointed over the petitioner as the Assistant Professor possessed Masters in Landscape Architecture. On the other hand, the petitioner himself had not studied architecture at all though he was handling the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Architecture before the appointment of the respondent professor in pursuance of the Advertisement in 2017.

"The 1983 Regulations read with the explanatory Note contained thereto, still stare the petitioner and R5 in the face as they prescribe a Masters Degree or equivalent, such equivalence connoting any qualification as may be recognised by the Council of Architecture for registration as an architect..."

The advertisement by NIT in 2017 states that a B.Tech/B.Arch or any equivalent degree and M.Tech/M. Arch or any other equivalent degree in the relevant discipline would suffice for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. Accepting that both the person appointed and the petitioner himself is ineligible, the latter tried to rely on Article 14 of the Constitution to establish that he must be appointed over the other in light of his 2 years' academic experience in the Department.

Though NIT argued that the subsequent regulations in 2015 and 2017 make relaxations on the qualification aspect by providing for equivalent degrees including Landscape Architecture against an M.Arch degree for employment in educational institutions, the court observed that both of those regulations have not been properly notified nor approved by the Ministry of Human Resources Development.

Therefore, NIT cannot rely on incorporating these new regulations to the First Statute, given that the 2017 notification itself was construed as not legally maintainable by a Division Bench of Madras High Court.

"The Bench (Division Bench) further observes that the only regulations that would be enforceable, as they have been duly approved by the Government as well as gazetted, are the Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 1983, framed under Section 45(2) (e)(g)(h)(i) and (j) r/w Section 21 of the Architects Act. Reliance of the respondents upon the 2015 and 2017 regulations is thus clearly misconceived", the court clarified with respect to the decision in the challenge against 2017 notification by the Academic Society of Architects.

On the lack of clarity pertaining to the reservation in appointments, the court concluded that NIT has not issued the advertisement in conformity with the previous directive of the Board of Governors.

"The impugned advertisement dated 11.10.2017 does not confirm to this directive, as nowhere does it stipulate, as has been specifically directed by the Board, the specific number of posts per category. It is only the counter which gives the break-up as being 11 vacancies of which, six relate to OC, three to OBC and one each to SC and ST. These details ought to have been stipulated in the advertisement itself and the omission to do so is a fatal flaw that, to my mind, vitiate the procedure followed in effecting appointments. The qualifications stipulated are also, as per the discussion in the paragraphs supra, not in line with the required regulations"

After making the above observations, the court set aside the appointment of the professor who joined in pursuance of the 2017 advertisement. The court also instructed NIT that there must be a fresh call to fill the vacancies ensuring compliance with the 1983 Regulations and the First Statute of NIT. Such a process must be concluded within three months as per the court's direction.

Case Title: P.Dhanaseelan v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(MD)No.19024 of 2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 64

Click Here To Read/ Download Order