CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has set aside as illegal, the appointment of Prof MS Ananth as the director of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Madras.
Justice K Chandru gave the orders while allowing a quo-warranto writ petition from Dr E Muralidharan questioning under what authority Ananth was holding the post. The judge also imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on Ananth payable to the petitioner.
Among other things, petitioner contended that there was neither an appointment by the Council, constituted under the Institutes of Technology Act nor was there a proper approval by the Visitor, the President of India.
Allowing the petition, the judge observed that Statute 15(3) of the Act clearly stated that it was only the Council which could appoint an eminent person as the director on contract for five years or till the age of 65 years, whichever was earlier. In this case, Ananth’s previous tenure of office for five years ended on December 23, 2006. His mere continuance in the said post was only till the end of the academic year.
Therefore, when a selection was notified by the Union Ministry of Human Resources Development, Ananth could not be said to be continuing in service against the statutory provisions. In any event, the decision so taken by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, approved by the HRD minister, made the whole issue illegal.
When the IITs were supposed to enjoy autonomy, it was unthinkable that the HRD minister could nominate or approve a search committee for the purpose of selecting the director.
Even the circular sent by the joint director only asked all the educationists to nominate candidates who were preferably not above 57 years. It was not clear as to how Ananth, who had completed 62 years, was nominated, the judge wondered.
When the Council had not appointed and even till date was not even aware of the appointment of Ananth as the director, it was unthinkable as to how he could continue in the post, the judge added.
Though the IITs were founded by the Government and governed by an Act of the Parliament, it was rather shocking that for the post of director, no public notice was given inviting applications, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The argument that the HRD ministry had a wider consultation in inviting nominations was unconvincing.
“Therefore, as rightly contended by the petitioner, the post had been kept warmed up for Ananth to occupy.
He must also had a prior intimation about his selection for the second term, which can be seen from the purchase of the stamp paper much in advance to entering into the agreement. But such issues are not necessary to be gone into in detail since the very appointment of Prof Ananth was not by the Council but by an unauthorised body,’’ the judge observed.