Madras High Court quashes Centre's order cancelling selection of 31 professors to the Indian Maritime University

The Madras High Court on Monday quashed the Centre's order cancelling the selection of 31 professors to the Indian Maritime University (IMU) in 2012-13, saying all the candidates were duly qualified and were chosen by a fair selection process, which included interviews over phone/Skype.

Justice M M Sundresh, describing the cancellation of their selection as bad in law, directed the IMU administration to continue the services of those professors who are working as on date and offer continuity of service and other benefits except back wages to those who were not permitted to work following the issuance of ‘termination orders’. 

Madras High Court

Following allegations of irregularities in the recruitment, the Centre formed Captain Mohan Committee in February 2013 to go into the issue. On April 3, 2013, the committee gave a report recommending "review of the entire selection process". Admitting that it was only a preliminary exercise, the committee asked IMU to carry out a detailed study. However, the Centre chose to cancel the appointments en masse. 

IMU had advertised 63 posts of professors and associate/assistant professors in September 2012. After scrutinising applications and conducting interviews, 33 were selected. After the executive council approved their selection, two candidates declined to accept the offer.

Justice Sundresh said: "Qualification and eligibility were considered and taken note of both by the selection committee and executive council. It is not in dispute that all the 31 were selected after the interview. Such methodology is sought to be overturned in a sweeping manner by merely accepting the report of the Captain Mohan Committee which is devoid of material particulars, apart from not being binding."

Holding that the very constitution of the committee is improper, Justice Sundresh said its report has got no statutory prescription. "It has made general remarks here and there. It has not gone into the qualification and eligibility of the petitioners. The constitution of the committee and the reliance made on its report, which formed the basis of the impugned orders, is bad in law."

As for the challenge to the conduct of the interviews over telephone, the Madras High Court found that there was neither any fraud nor procedural violation in the method. Rejecting phone or Skype interview could not be accepted, he said, "What is prescribed is only an interview, and therefore, in the absence of any malpractice involved therein, it cannot be said to be wrong. The procedure adopted is not barred expressly."

The Court then asked IMU to continue the services of those professors who are working as on date. As for those who were working and then not permitted to work following 'termination' orders, he said they should be given continuity of service from the date of the termination orders, apart from consequential benefits, except the back wages. In view of the peculiar facts of the case, the Court said those who could not join duty too are entitled to count their service from the prescribed last date given by IMU to join duty for seniority, without any back wages.