Dismissed

Sunil M.K v. University of Calicut

Kerala HC22 Jun 2010WP(C)/16829/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special leave petitioners challenging a university selection process were unsuccessful. The High Court held that shortlisting candidates after a written test to proceed to practical tests and interviews was lawful, reasonable, and supported by Supreme Court precedents. The 1981 selection rules were deemed superseded by 1977 statutes. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed, affirming the university's right to shortlist candidates for further selection stages.

Sunil M.K Vs University of Calicut — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 16829 of 2010(C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

SUNIL M.K.,S/O.VASUDEVAN, AGED 44 YEARS MOTOLI KANDY HOUSE, VIRUTHISSERY VAYAL, PUTHIYANGADI P.O.,KOZHIKODE -21.

¶9

SANTHOSH P..,AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN A., MANIKANDATHIL HOUSE,AMBALTHUKULANGARA, CHELANNUR,KOZHIKODE.

¶10

CALICUT UNIVERSITY TYPISTS APPLICANTS FORUM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,REP.BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SANTHOSH P..AGED 36 YEARS,S/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN A., MENIKANDATHIL HOUSE,AMBALTHUKULANGARA, CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT RE.BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THE CHANCELLOR,UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, RAJ BHAVAN, KAWDIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

RAMESH K.,KARTHIKA HOUSE, NEAR THARALI, THENHIPPALAM P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

RAISY P.V.,RAIRA HOUSE, NEAR CHITRA TAKIES, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶18

ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. FOR R1-3

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶21

W.P.(C). NO.16829 OF 2010

¶22

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2010

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The first and second petitioners were applicants for selection to the post of L.D.Typist with the scale of pay Rs.5,930-9590/- under the University of Calicut pursuant to Ext.P2 notification. The third petitioner is an unregistered forum by name Calicut University Typists Applicants forum. Since, even without deciding the locus standi of the 3^rd petitioner, the issues involved in this case call for consideration at the instance of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, I am proceeding to consider the case without considering the same. A written test was conducted as part of the selection process initiated as per Ext.P2 notification and the respondent University has shortlisted the candidates for the practical test and interview. Ext.P6 is the list prepared for the aforesaid purpose. The contention of the petitioners is that though they came out successful in the written test, they have not been included in Ext.P6 list. This Writ Petition has been filed in the aforesaid circumstances.

¶25

The petitioners rely on Ext.P1 which is a Draft Minutes of the meeting of the Syndicate dated 25.4.1981 to assail the action on the part of

¶26

W.P.(C) NO.16829/2010

¶27

¶28

the first respondent University in preparing Ext.P6 list after shortlisting the candidates. The contention is that in Ext.P2 notification, the University has stated thus: “The selection will be made after conducting a competitive test and interview” . The petitioners place reliance on Ext.P1 to challenge the selection process. According to them, the procedures to be adopted have been elaborately given under Ext.P1 and the University was bound to follow the same while conducting the selection process. According to them, if at all shortlisting is permissible, it should have been done only after conducting the written test and practical test. In that context, it is contended that the first respondent University is bound to allow the candidates who were given permission to participate in the written test to appear for the practical test as well since what was contemplated under Ext.P2 was only one competitive test.

¶29

A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent in this Writ Petition. According to the third respondent, Ext.P1 cannot be looked into at all for the purpose of deciding the validity of the selection process in question. Ext.P1 cannot be said to be in force in the light of Statute 8 in Chapter IV of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977. Statute 8 reads thus:

¶30

W.P.(C) NO.16829/2010

¶31

¶32

Recruitment to posts: Recruitment to posts shall be made on the basis of the recommendation made by a Selection Board consisting of the Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice-Chancellor as Chairman, Convener of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Finance and two other members of the Syndicate nominated by the Vice-Chancellor from time to time. The Registrar shall be the Secretary to the Board, Quorum for the meeting of the Selection Board shall be three including the Chairman. The Board may conduct such tests as are deemed necessary to determine the suitability of candidates for appointment. It may also fix the rate of fee for admission tests. In making appointments by direct recruitment to posts of nonteaching staff in the University, the University shall observe the provisions of clauses (a), (b) and © of rule 14 and rules 15,16 and 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 as amended from time to time.

¶33

Provided that it shall be competent for the Vice-Chancellor to make recruitment to posts the maximum of which does not exceed Rs.600 with or without the aid or advice of the Committee, in case he is of opinion that appointments should be made immediately.

¶34

Therefore, if as part of a competitive test, written test and practical test are prescribed, that cannot said to be illegal in the light of the aforesaid provision, it is submitted. A perusal of the Calicut University First Ordinance, 1978 would reveal that the schedule under chapter XV prescribes the qualifications and the method of appointment for selection

¶35

W.P.(C) NO.16829/2010

¶36

¶37

to the post of L.D.Typist. It provides direct recruitment as the first method of appointment. As per the same, direct recruitment has to be effected on the basis of merit to be decided by the competitive test and interview after inviting applications by advertisement. A perusal of Ext.P2 notification, in the light of the aforesaid provisions would reveal that the same was issued strictly in accordance with the same. Now the question is whether the action on the part of the respondent University in weeding out the candidates for the purpose of calling for the practical test and interview that is shortlisting candidates after the written test is legal or not.

¶38

As already noticed, the petitioners contend that since Ext.P2 notification provides for conducting a competitive test, the written test and the practical test should be taken as the part of the said competitive test and therefore, shortlisting the candidates should not have been resorted to just after the Written test. According to them, since the post concerned is L.D.Typist, weeding out candidates immediately after the written test is illegal, irrational and unreasonable and the petitioners should also be permitted to partake in the practical test and interview. Learned standing counsel for the University submits that it is well within the competence of the Selection Board to weed out the candidates rather, shortlisting them

¶39

W.P.(C) NO.16829/2010

¶40

¶41

after a written test. The petitioners cannot attribute any illegality with respect to the said procedure adopted by the selection Board as part of the selection process. To buttress the said contention, the learned standing counsel relied on the decision of this Hon'ble court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana reported in 1985(4) SCC 417 . In the selection process involved in the said case, all the qualified candidates in the written test were not called for the interview. In paragraph 20 therein, it is held as follows:

¶42

“Moreover, such a course would widen the are of arbitrariness, for even a candidate who is very much lower down in the list on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination, can, to borrow an expression used by the Division Bench, 'gatecrash' into the range of selection, if he is awarded unduly high marks at the viva voce examination. It has therefore always been the practice of the Union Public Service commission to call for interview, candidates representing not more than twice or thrice the number of available vacancies. Kothari Commitee's Report on the “Recruitment Policy and Selection Methods for the Civil Services Examination” also points out, after an in-depth examination of the question as to what should be the number of candidates to be called for interview:

¶43

The number of candidates to be called for interview, in order of the total marks in written papers, should not exceed, we think, twice the number of vacancies to be filled......

¶44

Otherwise the written examination which is definitely more objective in its assessment than the viva voce test

¶45

W.P.(C) NO.16829/2010

¶46

¶47

will lose all meaning and its assessment than the viva voce test which is to some extent subjective and discretionary in its evaluation will become the decisive factor in the process of selection. We are therefore of the view that where there is a composite test consisting of a written examination followed by viva voce test, the number of candidates to be called for interview in order of the marks obtained in the written examination, should not exceed twice or at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to be filled. The Haryana Public Service Commission in the present case called for interview all candidates numbering over 1300 who satisfied the minimum eligibility requirement by securing a minimum of 45% marks in the written examination and this was certainly not right, but we may point out that in doing so, the Haryana Public Service Commission could not be said to be actuated by any mala fide or oblique motive, because it was common ground between the parties that this was the practice which was being consistently followed by the Haryana Public Service commission over the years and what was done in this case was nothing exceptional. The only question is whether this had any invalidating effect on the selections made by the Haryana Public Service commission”.

¶48

Thus, Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision held that for the purpose of conducting a fair and satisfactory evaluation of candidates, shortlisting is permissible otherwise it will be difficult to carry out a satisfactory viva voce test if unmaintainable candidates are allowed to be interviewed. In this case, as part of the competitive test, the University has conducted a written test. Ext.P6 would reveal that even after weeding out

¶49

W.P.(C) NO.16829/2010

¶50

¶51

candidates, about 1135 candidates are included in Ext.P6 for the purpose of conducting practical test and interview. To support the action in preparing Ext.P6 list, the learned standing counsel has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Court in Agi K.J and othrs. v. State of Kerala & anthr. reported in 2009 (2) ILR (Kerala) 751 . Evidently, the number of candidates included in Ext.P6 is more than thrice the number of vacancies. The contention of the petitioners is that all the candidates including the petitioners who came out successful in the written test should be allowed to partake in the practical test and interview. I am of the view that interfering with Ext.P6 and issuing such a direction as sought for would go against the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1985( 4) SCC 417 (supra). As per Ext.P6, shortlisting was done with a view to minimise the number of candidates for conducting a fair selection. No illegality can be attributed against such an action. In fact, the petitioners did not attribute malafide. The only contention is that Exts.P1 and Ext.P2 notification do not permit such a shortlisting. In the light of incorporation of statue 8 in the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977, the provisions under the Calicut University first ordinance 1978, Ext.P1 cannot be said to have significance any more. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit

¶52

W.P.(C) NO.16829/2010

¶53

¶54

in the contentions raised by the petitioners against the selection process initiated as per Ext.P2. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶55

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶56

spc

¶57

W.P.(C) NO.16829/2010

¶58

¶59

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶60

W.P.(C). NO. /2010

¶61

JUDGMENT

¶62

June, 2010

¶63

W.P.(C) NO.16829/2010 10

Sunil M.K v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil M.K v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prathibha.T.S. Vs the Registrar,Mahatma Gandhi University

Mincymol Michael Vs the Deputy Director of Education

K.R.Vijayamoney Vs the District Educational Officer & Ors.

Dr.B.Jayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Jeeva K.T. Vs State of Kerala

Ann Jacob Vs Director of Public Instruction