MS Ananth

Chennai/New Delhi, Dec. 23: IIT Madras director M.S. Ananth’s appointment for a second term was today set aside on the ground of improper procedure, making him the first tech school head to be unseated by court.

Madras High Court passed the order on an appeal by an IIT-M alumnus who contended that Ananth’s appointment to a second term in mid-2007 was against the provisions of the IIT Act, 1961.

The act states a director can be appointed only by the IIT Council, the 33-member highest decision-making body of the tech schools that includes two MPs. The appointment has to be approved by the President, who is Visitor to the IITs.

The IIT Council has, however, not met for two years. A search-cum-selection panel picked by the human resource development ministry appointed Ananth.

Giving his verdict, Justice K. Chandru held that Ananth was first named director in January 2002 with retrospective effect from December 2001.

When his contract expired, the registrar issued an order enabling him to continue till June 30, 2007.

Next, the search panel recommended Ananth’s re-appointment for a further period of five years or till he completed 65 years of age, whichever was earlier.

Quoting the act, the judge observed: “It is only the council that can appoint an eminent person as director for a period not exceeding five years. When the IITs are supposed to enjoy autonomy, it is unthinkable that a minister for HRD can nominate or approve a search committee for selecting a director.”

Muralidharan has alleged that the IIT Act was violated because the IIT Council cannot approve Ananth’s appointment for a second term. The act allows extension of a director’s term, not re-appointment.

“The reason is simple —the director sits on the IIT Council that must ratify the appointment of the new director. One cannot ratify one’s own appointment. So, the act disallows re-appointment,” Muralidharan told The Telegraph.

“My aim is to make appointments to top posts at apex institutions transparent.”

The judge wondered how Ananth, 62, could have been nominated when applications are generally sought from candidates below 57 years of age.

“The entire procedure has been perverted and a small coterie approved by the minister for HRD has been made responsible for the selection of an important post,” he said.

“It is rather shocking no public notice was given, no advertisement was given in newspapers for the post of director, thus violating Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Many (short-listed) persons found in the add- ress list of the ministry were either dead or had gone away from the address in the list.”

The judge rejected the HRD ministry’s argument that the President’s approval had been obtained. “He was not informed that the decision was taken not by the council but by a small hand-picked coterie.

“In any event, when once the term of office is specified under statute, the same cannot be extended beyond that period,” the judge ruled.

Ananth told reporters he was ready to step down and it was up to the HRD ministry to decide on filing an appeal.