IIT-BHU gold medallist college principal vs campus supervisor: Why Madras High Court fined ex-staffer Rs 10,000

Finding the petition “frivolous” and “devoid of merit”, the high court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 10,000 to be paid to the high court legal services committee of the state within four weeks.

‘25 years of experience, qualified’

• The petitioner cannot claim himself as an aggrieved party since he is neither a student nor a teaching faculty member in the said college, but is a supervisor, supervising the work of scavengers, gardeners and sweepers.
• When such motivated and malicious pleas are filed with an ulterior objective, the high court should not only dismiss the petition but also shudl also penalise the petitioner with costs for blocking the judicial hours from dealing with the matters requiring judicial attention.
• The petitioner did not disclose his educational qualifications while highlighting himself as a person interested in engineering education and the welfare of teaching and other faculty.
• The principal is possessing M.Tech in material technology and has secured a Gold Medal from IIT – BHU (Banaras Hindu University) in the year 1991.
• The principal has met the required qualification criteria specified under AICTE regulations for being appointed to the post of principal of an engineering college since he has also secured Ph.D (Doctor of Philosophy) in material science and technology in 1998 from the same IIT – BHU.
• As far as the required experience is considered for the post of principal, it is noted that the present principal has more than 25 years of experience and is not a novice either to the subject or to the position.

‘Not from academia’

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate J Antony Jesus argued that the principle in question not only lacks the required educational qualification to hold the post of principal but also lacks experience.
• Jesus also mentioned that the principal in question has worked only as an assistant professor and not as a professor, and that too in a basic science department and not in any engineering branch of studies.
• Due to a lack of educational qualifications and sufficient knowledge in engineering to interact with other faculty members, the principal in question could not conduct faculty meetings effectively, causing frustration among the teaching staff.

• The said college is not taking any action to correct the mistake and is running it with a person as principal who does not qualify in terms of both education and experience.
• He also mentioned that his client has made representations and asked the college to appoint a person with the requisite qualifications as principal.
• The directorate of technical education of the state has also issued a direction to the said college via a letter in March 2021, yet no action has been taken.

‘Personal vendetta, ill will’

• On the contrary, appearing for the secretary of the said colleges, advocate C Johnson submitted in his reply that the petitioner was in no way connected with the academic and was appointed to supervise and assigned the job of supervising the gardeners, scavengers and sweepers.
• Since he was not employed in the academic department, Johnson further submitted that the petitioner cannot make claims as if he were concerned with engineering education and the welfare of teaching other faculty.
• The petitioner has a grudge against the principal appointed presently since he has done misdoings while in service and was found short of his duties, but was not dismissed after the acceptance of the apology tendered by him.
• None of the faculty members or the students who sought admission into the said college has questioned the appointment of the current principal.
• There is no complaint of the principal in question not being able to interact with the faculty, due to a lack of knowledge or experience.
• The principal in question is fully qualified in terms of the AICTE guidelines, Regulations to hold the post of principal of an engineering college and was appointed to the said post after thoroughly evaluating his educational qualification and experience during the academic year.
• The petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present plea as he is not an aggrieved person and has filed the petition due to personal vendetta, ill will and aversion against the institution concerned.
• The plea cannot be entertained since the said institution is a self-financing college, not drawing any grant, either educational or maintenance, from the state government or from the centre, and the post of principal is neither a substantive nor an independent position, and the same is terminable at the discretion of the management committee.

9 years of job, concern for education

• The petitioner was a campus supervisor in the said college for 9 years and opted for voluntary retirement in 2011.
• He claimed to have concern for engineering education and the welfare of teaching and other faculty after having his work experience in this college and other colleges.
• He also claimed that the present principal of the said college does not have the required eligibility and experience to hold the position, and filed this petition in 2021 to seek directions for a show cause notice explaining the qualifications of the said principal.