Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 18‑09‑2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Dr. Marykutty Abraham, residing at No.19, Throwpathy Amman Koil 1st Street, Velacherry, Chennai‑42.
  • Respondents: 1) Board of Governors (represented by its Chairman) of National Institute of Technical Training and Research (NITTTR), Taramani, Chennai‑113; 2) Director of NITTTR, Taramani, Chennai‑113.
  • Nature of proceeding: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari and mandamus to compel the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Associate Professor in Engineering, with all attendant benefits, seniority and pay, based on the offer letter dated 02‑04‑2012.
  • Background: The petitioner applied for the post of Associate Professor in Engineering pursuant to Notification dated 25‑07‑2010 (Advertisement No.01/2010). She was called for interview and an offer of appointment was issued on 02‑04‑2012. The appointment was stayed after a third‑party writ petition. The petitioner learned of the disposal of that petition and the related Writ Appeal (WA No.680 of 2012 dated 20‑04‑2016) and again requested appointment.
  • On 09‑10‑2018 the 2nd respondent issued an order refusing appointment on the ground that the petitioner had not fulfilled the required experience qualification.
  • The petitioner challenged that order in WP No.28474 of 2018; on 30‑08‑2019 a learned Single Judge directed the 2nd respondent‑Authority to appoint the petitioner.
  • The respondents appealed; the Division Bench in WA No.657 of 2021 (order dated 21‑04‑2021) set aside the Single Judge’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
  • After submission of all relevant records, the 2nd respondent again issued an order on 25‑11‑2021 sustaining the earlier refusal, prompting the present writ petition.
  • Petitioner’s arguments: (a) principle of estoppel and violation of Article 14; (b) equivalence of pay scales – she claimed that the basic pay of Rs 7,200 (1999‑2003) and Rs 28,020 (Oct 2009) were equivalent to the Lecturer pay scale; (c) cited Supreme Court judgment in Sub‑Inspector Rooplal & Another v. Lt. Governor (2000 1 SCC 644) that pay scale is one factor among others.
  • Respondents’ arguments: (a) expert committee found petitioner lacked requisite experience; (b) petitioner must prove equivalence of pay scale; (c) the Supreme Court case cited is not applicable as it involved same‑cadre comparisons, whereas here the petitioner was an Assistant Engineer in Soil Conservation Department.
  • Qualification criteria per Notification dated 25‑07‑2010: age <45 years; minimum 5 years teaching/industry/research experience at Lecturer (pre‑revised) / Assistant Professor level, with 2 years post‑Ph.D. experience desirable.
  • Expert/Selection Committee findings (paragraph 21 of Division Bench order):
  • Scale of pay of Assistant Engineer, Soil Conservation Department is not equivalent to Lecturer pay scale; Lecturer’s pay is higher.
  • Pay equivalence existed only from 01‑07‑2009 per Kerala Government G.O/(P) No.85/2011/Fin dated 26‑Feb‑2011.
  • Service at Sathyabama University (2 years 3 months) considered, but appointment order shows basic pay Rs 16,463, lower than AICTE/UGC scale; later pay slip shows Rs 28,020 but no proof of revision date.
  • Historical variance: during 1992‑2004, Assistant Engineer’s pay was lower than Lecturer’s by Rs 140 (1992) and Rs 525 (2004).
  • The petitioner’s pay certificate shows Rs 7,200 as “sub/officiating pay”, not the basic pay scale of Rs 7,200‑11,400.
  • The court reiterated that assessment of qualification and experience is the exclusive domain of the employer and must be made by experts; the court lacks expertise to substitute its own view.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed.
  • No costs are awarded to either party.
  • The connected WMP (Writ Motion Petition) is also closed.
  • Order dated 18‑09‑2026.

Topics: Court Decision, Academic Recruitment