IIT-Madras director's appointment under Madras high court's scrutiny
The validity of the appointment of the IIT-Madras director, Dr Bhaskar Ramamurthy, has been challenged in theMadras high court, where a former IITian has filed a quo warranto petition. If allowed by the court, the director could lose the post.
Justice D Hariparanthaman, before whom the petition filed by Dr E Muralidharan of Chennai came up for hearing on Friday, ordered notices to the director and the centre, returnable in three weeks.
In his petition, Muralidharan, who argued the case himself on Friday, said the director had been appointed without the mandatory approval of the Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC) headed by the Prime Minister. Noting that the President was the Visitor of all the 15 IITs in the country, he said each IIT is managed by a 32-member council. The director is appointed by the council with prior approval of the Visitor, the petition said. In this regard, he said that Clause 15 (3) of the statutes says: "The council may appoint an eminent person as director for a period not exceeding five years with a provision for renewal for further periods that every such appointment and terms thereof shall be subject to the prior approval of the Visitor."
Muralidharan, citing information obtained through the RTI Act, said human resources minister Kapil Sibal chaired the screening committee as well as the selection committee and the appointment committee. While the screening committee perused the applications of candidates, the second committee made the actual appointment. He said the minister had unilaterally, and in violation of laws, taken the decision to appoint Dr Bjaskar Ramamurthy as director of IIT-Madras, without the knowledge and approval of the council. This is a clear violation of the statute, he said.
Noting that the council meant the entire council of members and not the chairman alone, the petition said the process was tweaked to favour Dr Bhaskar Ramamurthy. Another important anomaly in the appointment process, according to Dr Muralidharan, was that though Dr Ramamurthy had taken charge as IIT-Madras' director on September 23, 2011; his appointment was ratified on January 7, 2013. "Minutes of the 46th IIT council meeting held on January 7, 2013 at Delhi shows ratification of the appointment of Dr Ramamurthy as the director of IIT-Madras. It is interesting to note that the Dr Ramamurthy, who took charge as director on September 23, 2011, was ratified only after more than one year and three months. More interestingly, Dr Ramamurthy was also present in the meeting to ratify his name as director of IIT-Madras," the petition said.
The petition wanted the high court to issue a writ of quo warranto to Dr Ramamurthy asking him to show as to under what authority he held the post of the director of IIT-Madras.
Justice D Hariparanthaman, before whom the petition filed by Dr E Muralidharan of Chennai came up for hearing on Friday, ordered notices to the director and the centre, returnable in three weeks.
In his petition, Muralidharan, who argued the case himself on Friday, said the director had been appointed without the mandatory approval of the Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC) headed by the Prime Minister. Noting that the President was the Visitor of all the 15 IITs in the country, he said each IIT is managed by a 32-member council. The director is appointed by the council with prior approval of the Visitor, the petition said. In this regard, he said that Clause 15 (3) of the statutes says: "The council may appoint an eminent person as director for a period not exceeding five years with a provision for renewal for further periods that every such appointment and terms thereof shall be subject to the prior approval of the Visitor."
Muralidharan, citing information obtained through the RTI Act, said human resources minister Kapil Sibal chaired the screening committee as well as the selection committee and the appointment committee. While the screening committee perused the applications of candidates, the second committee made the actual appointment. He said the minister had unilaterally, and in violation of laws, taken the decision to appoint Dr Bjaskar Ramamurthy as director of IIT-Madras, without the knowledge and approval of the council. This is a clear violation of the statute, he said.
Noting that the council meant the entire council of members and not the chairman alone, the petition said the process was tweaked to favour Dr Bhaskar Ramamurthy. Another important anomaly in the appointment process, according to Dr Muralidharan, was that though Dr Ramamurthy had taken charge as IIT-Madras' director on September 23, 2011; his appointment was ratified on January 7, 2013. "Minutes of the 46th IIT council meeting held on January 7, 2013 at Delhi shows ratification of the appointment of Dr Ramamurthy as the director of IIT-Madras. It is interesting to note that the Dr Ramamurthy, who took charge as director on September 23, 2011, was ratified only after more than one year and three months. More interestingly, Dr Ramamurthy was also present in the meeting to ratify his name as director of IIT-Madras," the petition said.
The petition wanted the high court to issue a writ of quo warranto to Dr Ramamurthy asking him to show as to under what authority he held the post of the director of IIT-Madras.
Comments