S.Balakrishnan v. State Of Tamil Nadu. Rep

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.02.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.(MD)No.13673 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2 to 4 of 2013 and 2 of 2014 1.S.Balakrishnan 2.S.Venkatraman 3.N.Subramanian ... Petitioners Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.

by the Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department Secretariat, Chennai.

2.The Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department Secretariat, Chennai.

3.The Director of Medical Education Kilpauk, Chennai.

4.Vinayaka Missions University (Formerly Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation deemed University), Rep. by the Director, Directorate of Distance Education, Ariyanoor, Salem, 636 308.

5.The Non Medical Post Graduate Association of Chennai, rep. by the Secretary, 54 Lakshmi Nagar IV Stage, 2nd Cross Street, Nanganallur, Chennai. 6.G.Sridhar (R5 and R6 Impleaded vide Court order dated 24/02/14 in MP(MD)No.1/14) 7.The University Grants Commission (UGC) Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi.

(R7 is Suo Moto impleaded vide Court Order dated 14/12/2016) ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent in connection with the order passed by him in Ref.No. 52374/E5/1/2013

dated 26.07.2013 and quash the same to the extent of excluding the degrees diplomas and post graduate degrees granted by the 4th Respondnet University for consideration of the petitioners for appointment/promotion to the post of Non Medical Assistant to the Professor of Bio Chemistry or Bio Chemist or Librarian in case of possession of B.L.I.S.

from the cadre of Lab Supervisor/Non Medical Demonstrator and direct the respondents to include the Vinayaka Missions University in the List of Universities given under Schedule II Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules immediately and consequently consider the petitioners for promotion/appointment to the post of Non Medical Assistant to the Professor of Bio Chemistry (or) Bio-Chemist (or) Librarian Grade I as far as the 3rd petitioner is concerned for the year 2012-2013 atleast and promote them to the said post. For Petitioners :Mr.R.Singaravelan senior counsel for Mr.D.Selvanayagam For Respondents :Mr.V.Muruganantham Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for R4 Ms.D.Geetha for R5 and R6 Mr.R.

ORDER

The petitioners herein have come up with this writ petition for a prayer of inclusion of one Vinayaka Mission University (a deemed University within the meaning of Section 3 of UGC Act) in the list of Universities coming under Schedule II Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the general Rules') and also for a consequential prayer to consider their candidature for promotion/appointment the post of non medical assistant to the Professor of Bio Chemistry or Bio Chemist and Librarian Grade I insofar as the third petitioner is concerned for the year 2012-2013.

2. In this writ petition, by order dated 20.08.2013, this Court passed the following interim order:

"Though the petitioner sought for a larger relief, considering the fact that the petitioner already obtained M.Sc.,(BioChemsitry) from the fourth respondent, namely, Vinayaka Missions University, Salem and the petitioner has given a representation on 06.08.2013 to the respondents 1 and 2 to include the Vinayaka Missions University in Schedule-II of the Tamil Nadu and Subordinate Service Rules and so that, the petitioner's name can also be considered for promotion, a perusal of the records would show that the Vinayaka Missions University formerly Vinayaka Missions University, is a deemed University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commissions Act. When University Grants Commissions has accredited the same as the Deemed University

status under Section 3 of the UGC Act, the same is required to be considered by the respondents 1 and 2 for inclusion in Schedule-II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, by passing appropriate orders based on the petitioner's representation dated 06.08.2013 given to the respondents 1 and 2 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same is directed to place it before this Court. 2.Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner is at liberty to take notice to the fourth returnable by 29.08.2013. Private Notice is also permitted.

Post on 29.08.2013."

3. Pursuant to the said orders passed by this Court, the first respondent issued a Government order in G.O.Ms.No.39 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 30.04.2014, whereby an amendment has been made in Rule 19 Schedule II. According to the said amendment, 655 Universities/Higher Education Institutions throughout the Country have been included in the said Schedule II of Rule 19, wherein, the said Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation (Deemed University), Salem had also been included at S.No.523. Therefore, virtually, the main portion of the prayer, which has been sought for by the petitioners herein, has already been accomplished, in view of the said amendment having been issued by the first respondent through the said Government order in G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 30.04.2014. Therefore, in view of the said main prayer having been allowed already, the only issue now rest is as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to get the consequential relief as they sought for in this writ petition or not.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

5. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, would contend that these petitioners, ie., the first petitioner is concerned, he is working at Madurai Medical College, as Lab Supervisor and the 2nd petitioner is working as Lab Supervisor at Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital at Tirunelveli and the third petitioner is a Lab Supervisor in Government Hospital of Thoracic Medicine, Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai. The first petitioner is having the educational qualification of B.Sc., Chemistry with the qualification of DMLT Grade II and thereafter, he acquired the qualification of M.Sc., Bio Chemistry ie., PG Degree from the said Vinayaka Mission University ie., the 4th respondent herein. Like that, the 2nd petitioner is having the qualification of DMLT Grade I from King Institute, Guindy and also having the qualification of B.Sc., Chemistry awarded by Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli and subsequently, acquired M.Sc., Bio Chemistry from the 4th respondent University. Also the third respondent is having the similar qualification,

ie., DMLT Grade I from King Institute, Guindy, Chennai and B.Sc., Biochemistry degree obtained in the year 2007 from the 4th respondent University, also, he acquired M.Sc., Bio Chemistry degree from 4th respondent ie., Vinayaka Mission University, Salem.

6. With these qualifications, the petitioners expected promotions to the post of non medical Assistants to the Professor of Biochemistry or Biochemist and insofar as the third petitioner is concerned to the post of Librarian Grade I. Accordingly, they had expected that they would be considered for promotion by including their names in the panel prepared for the promotion to the said posts for the year 2012 - 2013. However, the petitioners were not considered for promotion and their names were not included. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the reason for non consideration of the candidature of the petitioners for promotion to the said posts is obviously, because of want of the basic qualification, which requires for consideration to the promotion to the said post being M.Sc.

, Biochemistry and the said degrees, admittedly, the petitioners obtained from the 4th respondent University, since the 4th respondent University is not one of the higher educational institution included in the Schedule II Rule 19 of the General Rules. Only in that circumstances, these petitioners have approached this Court with the present writ petition.

7. Since the 4th respondent University having not been included in the 2nd Schedule to Rule 19 of the General Rules, the non consideration of the candidature of the petitioners cannot be found fault with and therefore, the petitioners have sought for the main prayer to include the said 4th respondent University as one of the higher educational Institution for the purpose of considering the degrees awarded by such Institution for the public employment in the State governing the said services under the said General Rules, that is how, the first portion of the prayer in the writ petition was sought for.

8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would further submit that either pursuant to the orders of this Court as referred to above dated 20.08.2013 or on their own, since the first respondent has come forward to issue amendment to the said Rule 19 Schedule II of the General Rules by issuing G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 30.04.2014, the first portion of the prayer sought for in this writ petition has been accomplished and in that the 4th respondent also, since has been included in the second Schedule to Rule 19, certainly, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there can be no further impediment for the official respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the purpose of promotion to the said post as their qualification obtained from the 4th respondent University, since has been recognised by including the name of the 4th respondent University in the second Schedule to Rule 19.

9. The 5th and 6th respondents had subsequently been impleaded by orders of this Court dated 24.02.2014, at the instance of the petitions filed by them in M.P.No.1 of 2014.

10. Ms.D.Geetha, learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6, in fact, has made detailed submissions opposing the prayer sought for by the petitioners herein. According to the learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6, firstly, the 4th respondent University was not included in the second schedule to Rule 19 of the General Rules. Only pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, as stated supra, now, the Government has come forward to issue G.O.Ms.No.39 and by virtue of the same, the 4th respondent University also has been included in the said schedule. According to the learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6, the said inclusion is only in compliance of the orders of this Court and not by the voluntary action on the part of the official respondents and if at all the said inclusion has been made, it is only a temporary phenomenon and the same cannot be treated as a permanent rule position and based on which, no right can be accrued on the petitioners to claim position of promoting posts.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 would also submit that nevertheless, one of the promotee other than the petitioners and other than the respondents 5 and 6 had already approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.29214/2016, wherein, the said G.O.No.39 dated 30.04.2014 itself has been challenged. That writ petitioner is also one of the member of the 5th respondent herein. When the very import of G.O.No.39 is under question before this Court and before a decision is taken one way or the other by this Court in the said writ petition about the validity of the issuance of the said G.O., making an amendment to Schedule II to Rule 19 of the General Rules, if any order is passed in this writ petition towards the second portion of the prayer, as has been sought for herein, certainly, that will cause prejudice not only to the said petitioner in the other writ petition, but also even the members of the 5th respondent as well as the 6th respondent herein.

12. The learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6, by relying upon the communication issued by the University Grants Commission (in short UGC) (has subsequently been suo motu impleaded as 7th respondent by orders of this Court dated 14.12.2016) would make a submission that according to the communication issued by the University Grants Commission, the 4th respondent Institution had originally been given only ex-post facto Institutional recognition for the programmes it offered through the Distance Mode of Education up to the year 2005. Thereafter, the Distance Education Council (DEC) had given institutional recognition to the 4th respondent University for the period of 5 years with effect from the date of issuance of its order, ie., 28.02.2007. Thereafter, the DEC had given programme wise recognition to the 4th respondent University for three years from the academic session 2011-2012 to 2013-2014 for offering

specific programmes and in such programme wise recognition, the course M.Sc. Biochemistry was not included. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6, there was no recognition from the authorities concerned under the UGC Act as well as the Indra Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) Act for the 4th respondent University to conduct distance education programme between the years 2005 and 2007 and even thereafter, when there was no specific recognition or promotion having been given to the 4th respondent University to conduct the programme of M.Sc.

, Biochemistry, the post graduation degree said to have been obtained by these petitioners herein from the very same 4th respondent University during the year 2011 and 2012 would have no effect and for the purpose of employment, that too, in the said employment such educational qualifications obtained by the petitioners from the 4th respondent University cannot be taken into account. In this regard, the learned counsel would further add that merely because the 4th respondent university has been included in Schedule II of Rule 19 of the General Rules by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 30.04.2014, already obtained post graduate degree in M.Sc.

Biochemistry by these petitioners during the years 2011 and 2012 cannot be ipso facto recognised as one of the recognised qualification for the purpose of giving promotion to the post and therefore, these petitioners, at no point of time, would be considered to be eligible candidates much less during the relevant period ie., 2012 and 2013 as for said period alone, these petitioners had sought for consideration of their candidature for promotion.

13. The learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 would also submit that in communication dated 20.04.2011 issued by the IGNOU, the recognition given to the 4th respondent University to conduct various programmes both for UG course as well as PG course has been enumerated, wherein, there is a list of 47 courses had been given, in which, the course, namely, M.Sc., Biochemistry is not found place in the said communication of the IGNOU dated 20.04.2011. Moreover, one of the petitioner, admittedly, had obtained B.Sc., degree from Vinayaka Mission through correspondence mode or distance mode during the year 2007, whereas the specific communication of the DEC, IGNOU as well as UGC would say that there was no specific recognition even institutional wise recognition to the 4th respondent University for the period 2005 and 2007. Therefore, even the UG degree obtained by one of the petitioner herein would not have the recognition from the UGC and without which, the degree obtained by the petitioners cannot be treated as a valid degree for the purpose of employment or promotion.

14. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 would further submit that for all these reasons, none of the petitioners herein would be considered to be eligible for the purpose of inclusion of their names in the panel fit for promotion to the post of non medical assistant to the Professor of Biochemistry or Biochemist. Therefore, certainly the second

portion of the prayer sought for in this writ petition, at any cost, cannot be granted by this Court, in view of the factual matrix as detailed above, she contended.

15. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents would submit by relying upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, that all the three petitioners are working as Lab Supervisors in Government Medical Colleges and Government Hospital of Thoracic Medicine, Tambaram respectively. The method of appointment to the post of non medical Assistant to the Professor of Biochemistry and the qualification for such promotion as per the Rule is as extracted at paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit, which reads thus: "9.It is submitted that the petitioners herein have claimed appointment to the post of Non Medical Assistant to the Professor of Biochemistry. The method of appointment and Educational qualification for the post of Non Medical Assistant to the Professor of Biochemistry are as follows:

Method of appointment:

By promotion from among the holders of the temporary post of non medical demonstrator in Biochemistry and Laborator Supervisors; provided if no such suitable and qualified candidate is available, by transfer from any other class or category or recruitment by transfer from any other service (or) by direct recruitment.

Qualification:

A degree of M.Sc., by research in Biochemistry or Chemistry of a first or second class degree in M.Sc.,M.A. Or B.Sc.

(Hons) in Biochemistry or Chemistry of the Madras, Andhra or AnnamalaiUniversity.

Provided that the aforesaid qualification shall not be necessary in the case of Non medical demonstrators in Biochemistry / Laboratory Supervisors in Medical Colleges who has put in service for a period of not less than five years in the respective post.

16. The learned Additional Government Pleader would also submit that the panel for the post of non medical Assistant to the Professor of Biochemistry for the year 2012 and 2013 had not been issued so far due to the reasons that the petitioners had challenged the circular issued by the third respondent dated 26.07.2013 calling for the list of qualified persons for inclusion in the said panel. He also submits that the crucial date for the panel year 2012-2013 is 15.03.2012, at that time, since the 4th respondent University had not been included in the second schedule of Rule 19 of the General Rules, none of the petitoners' candidatures could have been considered for promotion.

While so, when this writ petition was filed by these three petitioners, as already referred to, orders were passed by this Court to consider the inclusion of the 4th respondent University also in the second Schedule of Rule 19 of the General Rules. Therefore, the first respondent has issued G.O.No.39, wherein at S.No.523 of the second Schedule, as amended by virtue of the said Government order, the 4th respondent has been included, as one of the higher education institution for considering their degrees and diplomas awarded, for the purpose of employment and promotion.

17. The learned Additional Government Pleader would also submit by relying upon the averments made by the first respondent in the counter affidavit that in the meanwhile promotion had been given to some of the candidates including the 6th respondent by order in G.O.2D No.66 Health and Family Welfare Department dated 28.07.2014 and such promotions given to the said candidates including the 6th respondent is only a temporary promotion and in this regard, the following averment has been made in the counter affidavit at paragraph No.13, which reads thus: "13.......However, the said post has been filled up by giving temporary promotion to the eligible candidates under rule 39(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services vide G.O.(2D) No.66, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 28.07.2014."

18. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that in view of the inclusion of the 4th respondent University as one of the higher education University at Schedule II of Rule 19, for the purpose of State employment, the respondent would act upon to verify as to whether these petitioners would have the necessary qualifications for consideration to the post of non medical assistant to Biochemistry.

19. This Court had considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

20. As has been stated above, the first portion of the prayer sought for in this writ petition has already been accomplished

either pursuant to the orders passed by this Court or on their own action, by issuance of G.O.No.39 dated 30.04.2014, the necessary amendment has been effected in Rule 19 of Schedule II, wherein not only the 4th respondent University but also 655 higher education institutions throughout the country had been included, wherein the 4th respondent finds place at S.No.523. Since the 4th respondent University has now been included at second Schedule of Rule 19 of the General Rules, where the qualifications acquired by these petitioners, especially, the qualification of PG degree in Biochemistry from 4th respondent University, can be considered as a valid qualification for the purpose of promotion or employment, can be decided by the employer alone, as it depends upon the claim and merits of each and every individual.

21. However, insofar as the general objections raised on behalf of the respondents 5 and 6 is concerned, by relying upon the communication issued by the DEC, IGNOU as well as the UGC that the 4th respondent University did not enjoy the recognition, especially, the course wise recognition through the relevant period ie., between 2011 and 2012, the qualifications acquired by these petitioners cannot be taken as a valid qualification for the purpose of promotion is concerned, the issue is in a very narrow campus, because pursuant to the impleadment of 7th respondent UGC by the orders of this Court, Mr.R.Vijay Karthikeyan the learned standing counsel for the UGC, regarding the recognition or approval given to 4th respondent University at various point of time including the years 2011 and 2012, has produced a written communication dated 27.01.

2017, which reads thus: "The Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation, Salem, Tamil Nadu, is a deemed University. The erstwhile regulator Distance Education Council (DEC) had granted ex post facto institutional recognition to it for the programmes offered by it through distance mode upto the academic year 2005. Further DEC gave 'institutional recognition' to it for a period of 5 years w.e.f. the date of issue of its letter ie. from 28th February 2007. The programme wise recognition was accorded to it for three years from academic session 2011-12 to 2013-14 for offering specific programmes, which does not include M.Sc Biochemistry. No further recognition has been granted to it either by DEC or UGC to offer any programme through distance mode. Copies of approval letters are attached for ready reference.

During the period of institutional recognition, the University was required to offer programmes approved by the statutory bodies of the University and after seeking approval of the concerned regulatory bodies, wherever required."

22. From the reading of the said communication of the UGC, it become clear that the 4th respondent University during the relevant point of time ie., between 2011-2012 and 2013 -2014 had enjoyed only programme wise recognition and in the list of such programmes, no doubt, the course called M.Sc.,Biochemistry was not included. Therefore, it may appear that the objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 would have some force. However, the fact remains that these three petitioners had obtained the degree of M.Sc., Biochemistry during the following years:

The first petitioner obtained the degree in February 2012; the 2nd petitioner obtained the degree in September 2011 and the third petitioner in February 2011 from the 4th respondent University.

23. Since the M.Sc., Biochemistry is two years course, if they had completed the 2 years course and awarded the degree itself by the 4th respondent University in the year 2011 and 2012, certainly, these candidates would have joined the course either during the academic year 2009-2010 or during the academic year 2010 and 2011. Therefore, these petitioners had joined in the 4th respondent University, that University had enjoyed the Institutional recognition from distance education council (DEC) ie., from 28.02.2007, institutional recognition was given to the 4th respondent University for five years. Therefore, from February 2007, the 4th respondent enjoyed the institutional recognition till February 2012 and within this period only, these three petitioners had joined in the B.Sc. Biochemistry course and successfully completed the said course. Therefore, specific objections raised on behalf of the respondents 5 and 6 about the qualifications especially M.Sc., Biochemistry acquired by these petitioners cannot be countenanced.

24. Insofar as the other objections raised by the said contesting respondents 5 and 6 are concerned, the very inclusion of the 4th respondent University itself under Schedule II of 19 of the General Rules, since has been questioned before this Court in the writ petition concerned, unless a decision is taken by this Court in the said writ petition, which is pending, if any consideration has been made by the official respondents insofar as the candidature of these petitioners are concerned, certainly, the service benefits, promotional procedures and other related service issues pertaining to the other eligible persons including members of the 5th respondent as well as the 6th respondent would be greatly prejudiced is concerned, the answer is at paragraph No.

14 of the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, where they have specifically contended that the promotion given to members of the 5th respondent as well as the 6th respondent by virtue of G.O.2D No.66 dated 28.07.2014 is only temporary in nature, as the same has been made under Rule 39(1) of the General Rules.

whatever promotion is given temporarily in order to meet out the contingencies in Government services, they would not give any leverage or advantage to the persons so promoted to claim the permanent status of such promotion from the date of such promotion. Therefore, the apprehension now raised by the learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 can be legally met without having any prejudice to anybody's interest including the interest of the members of the 5th respondent, is in the parallel proceedings pending before this Court.

25. Insofar as the present claim made by the petitioners, in this writ petition is concerned, as the first portion of the prayer has already been accomplished, it is open to the official respondents to consider as to whether these petitioners would be eligible or entitled to claim promotion by virtue of their acquiring the necessary qualifications from the 4th respondent University, as the same having been included in the second schedule of Rule 19 of the General Rules. In this regard, the averments made by the first respondent in the counter affidavit, particularly, paragraph No.11 can be extracted herein:- "11.It is further submitted that in its interim orders dated 17.03.

2014, this Hon'ble Court, have ordered that 3 posts of non medical Assistant to the Professor Biochemistry to be reserved for the petitioners and remaining vacant posts shall be filled up as per the existing rules. But, no post of non medical assistant to the Professor of Biochemistry has been filled up so far, since sufficient particulars have not been received from the Head of Institutions. However, while filling up of the said vacant posts, the orders of this Hon'ble Court would be taken into account in spirit."

26. According to the first respondent, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in this writ petition, dated 17.03.2014, three posts of non medical Assistants to the Professor of Biochemistry were directed to be reserved, however, the first respondent has averred in the counter that no post of medical assistant to the professor of Biochemistry has been filled up so far. Therefore, all the posts in the said cadre are still kept vacant and therefore, it is open to the official respondents to proceed in accordance with law to fill up those posts, while considering the promotion to the said post, the eligibility of every eligible candidates including the petitioners can also be considered.

27. In the result, the following orders are passed in this writ petition:

(i) Insofar as the prayer sought for in this writ petition is concerned, by recording the passing of G.O.Ms.No.39 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 30.04.2014, the first

portion of the prayer, since has been accomplished, no order is required for the said prayer.

(ii) In respect of the consequential prayer of Mandamus for consideration of the candidature of the petitioners for the promotion to the post of Non Medical Assistants to the post of Professor of Biochemistry or Biochemists is concerned, since the petitioners acquired the qualifications as prescribed for the said post, which includes the PG qualification in M.Sc., Chemistry, their candidature also can be considered along with other eligible candidates and while considering the same, it is for the official respondents to verify, whether the degrees awarded by the 4th respondent University to the petitioners, especially, the degree of M.Sc., Biochemistry is a valid degree for the purpose of such employment.

(iii) In pursuant to these directions, if the candidature of the petitioners are accepted by the official respondents and correspondingly promotions are given to them, such promotion shall be subject to the outcome of the decision to be made in the pending writ petition in W.P.No.29124/2016.

(iv) The needful as indicated above shall be done as expeditiously as possible, since the said posts have not been filled up from the year 2012 and 2013, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department Secretariat, Chennai.

2.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Health & Family Welfare Department Secretariat, Chennai. 3.The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai. 4.The Director, Vinayaka Missions University (Formerly Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation deemed University) , Directorate of Distance Education, Ariyanoor, Salem, 636 308.

5.The Secretary, The University Grants Committee (UGC), New Delhi +One cc to Mr.D.Selvanayagam, Advocate, SR.No.6083 +One cc to Mr.B.Vijaya Karthikeyan, Advocate, SR.No.6177 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.6394 RR RL/9C/12P/SV/MMS/SAR1/21/6/2017 W.P.(MD)No.13673 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) No.2 to 4 of 2013 and 2 of 2014 03.02.2017