In a major blow to the State government, the Madras High Court on Thursday held that there was “wholesale” violation of rules in appointing Director of Collegiate Education (DCE), a post that gets filled with the nod of the Chief Minister and the Higher Education Minister.
Justice V. Parthiban set aside the appointment of C. Poornachandran to the post after finding that his selection, overlooking two other senior and eligible candidates, was not only contrary to the rules but also “appears to have been actuated on extraneous consideration.”
Allowing a writ petition filed by G. Geetha, a contestant to the post, the judge agreed with her counsel N.G.R. Prasad that the entire exercise of selecting the right candidate for the post must be redone in accordance with the rules and by assessing inter se merit and seniority. The judge pointed out that as per rules, the selection process to the post of a head of the department (non IAS) must begin three months before the prospective date of retirement of the incumbent officer. No such process was initiated before R. Sarumathi retired on May 31, 2019. A G.O. was issued on the date of her retirement notifying the vacancy in the post of DCE as one for the year 2019-20. However, no further action was taken to fill the vacancy, forcing Ms. Geetha to submit a representation and also file a writ petition in 2019.
The court disposed of her petition in December 2019 with a direction to the government to consider her claim for appointment as DCE. Yet, the government did not act upon the direction and instead issued another G.O. on August 7 this year notifying ‘nil’ vacancy for the year 2019-20. Thereafter, steps were taken to prepare a panel of names eligible for the post of DCE. On August 13, Minister for Higher Education K.P. Anbalagan signed a proceeding recommending the name of Mr. Poornachandran to the post and it was countersigned by the Chief Secretary. A day later, the CM affixed his signature.
“Therefore, a lot more explanation is required as to why G.O. No.95 (notifying one vacancy) was not acted upon and why G.O. No.88 was hurriedly issued by notifying the earlier vacancy as nil,” the judge said. He went on to state that on August 14, three successive G.Os had been issued. The first G.O. No. 98 listed the names of five candidates who had been empanelled for the post. The list included the names of Ms. Geetha as well as Mr. Poornachandran. As per the G.O., it should have been circulated to all Regional Joint Directors of Collegiate Education and Grade I Principals and two months’ time should be granted for them to make appeal against their non-inclusion in the panel. Without following this procedure, G.O. No. 99 was issued on August 14 appointing Mr. Poornachandran as DCE. It was followed by G.O. No. 100, on the same day, appointing the rest of the four panelists as Officers on Special Duty, a post on a par with that of DCE. Terming it “an exercise in inanity,” the judge said files circulated by the government didn’t contain any material in favour of Mr. Poornachandran to justify the preference given to him.
The judge also wondered how inter se merit could have been considered when the government had not even maintained Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the five panelists for last five years. The available reports had been written in a prosaic manner and maintained shoddily.
“The disorderly upkeep of the files/ACRs is not only disconcerting but shocking too,” the judge said and directed the government to evolve a fair procedure for assessment of inter se merit and ability “without giving any room for possible abuse in the future selection.”
