This court dismissed a writ petition filed by an eligible Special Education candidate challenging his rejection in favor of another appointee. The court held that the petitioner lacked the mandatory basic qualification of a degree in Behavioural Science and noted the finality of the earlier judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/19TH MAGHA 1934
WP(C).No. 12827 of 2007 (B)
PETITIONER:
K.R.JAYACHANDRAN,CO-ORDINATOR-SCC, INTERNATIONAL INDIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL, BOX:13740, RIYADH 11414, K.S.A.(HAVING COMMUNICATION ADDRESS IN PONGAVANA, VILLOONNI POST, KOTTAYAM, KERALA – 686 008, AND PERMANENT ADDRESS IN GEETHA BHAVAN, THANNERSALA, POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), REPRESENTED BY HIS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DR.SAJEEN RAGH A.R., ANANDA MANDIRAM (ANANDA MADOM) SREENIVASA IYER ROAD, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.K.SUNIL, SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ.
RESPONDENTS:
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM.
2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O, KOTTAYAM.
3. SATHEESAN KOCHUPARAMBIL, SYNDICATE MEMBER, M.G.UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O, KOTTAYAM.
4. DR.RASINA PADMAM, THE DIRECTOR,
5. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN: 110 002.
6. RAJESH, ELAYEDATH HOUSE, KULATHARA, KOZHIKODE.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, S.C R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, R6 BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Prv.
W.P.(C). NO.12827/2007-B:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXT.P.1: | COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. AD.A.II/1/3155/2004 DD. 24/12/2005 ISSUED BY THE R.1. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P.2: | COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. |
| EXT.P.3: | COPY OF THE CALL LETTER NO. AD.AII(I)/3155/2004/ADMN. DTD. 01/03/2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. |
| EXT.P.4: | COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SCREENING COMMITTEE HELD ON 20/10/2006. |
| EXT.P.5: | COPY OF THE LETTER NO. AD.AII(2)/110/ADMN./2006 DTD. 04/11/2006 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. |
| EXT.P.6: | COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. AD.AII (1)/3155/2004/ADMN. DTD. 21/11/2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AT 10.45 A.M. ON 22/11/2006. |
| EXT.P.7: | COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE MEETING OF THE R.1. UNIVERSITY HELD ON 12/01/2007. |
| EXT.P.8: | COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE R.6 DTD. 15/01/2007. |
| EXT.P.9: | COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. UNIVERSITY UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. |
| EXT.P.10: | COPY OF THE LETTER NO. AD AII/2/RTI-A/103/2006 DTD. 01/03/2007 ALONG WITH THE DETAILS FORWARDED BY THE R.1. |
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
| EXT.R5.A: | COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 24/12/1998 ISSUED BY THE R.5. |
|---|---|
| EXT.R5.B: | COPY OF THE U.G.C. REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT OF LECTURERS, READERS & PROFESSORS. |
| EXT.R5.C: | COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 09/12/2004 OF THE R.5. |
| EXT.R6.A: | COPY OF THE DETAILS OF FACULTY OF INTERNATIONAL INDIAN PUBIC SCHOOL, RIYADH. |
| EXT.R6.B: | COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT.D 20/11/2006 IN W.A. NO. 2088/2006. |
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Prv.
“CR”
B.P. RAY, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 12827 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of February, 2013.
JUDGMENT
Heard both sides.
W.P.(C) No. 12827/2007 : 2 :
committee was constituted and the re-constituted screening committee re-screened the applications and rejected the applications except that of the 6th respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 16288 of 2006. This Court passed an order dated 03.11.2006 postponing the interview and directing the University to invite the petitioner also for the interview. Thereafter, he was issued with Ext.P5 order rejecting his application. The interview was scheduled to 22.11.2006 and Ext.P6 call letter was issued to the petitioner on 22.11.2006. Thereafter, in the meeting of the syndicate held on 12.01.2007, the proceedings of the selection committee was approved and it was decided to appoint the 6th respondent provisionally. Accordingly, Ext.P8 order appointing the 6th respondent has been issued. Hence this writ petition.
W.P.(C) No. 12827/2007
: 3 :
Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000. According to clause 1.3.3 of Annexure appended to the said Regulations for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Education the person should have academic record with at least 55% of the marks in the relevant subject. Therefore, as per clause 2 of the UGC Regulations read with clause 1.3.3 of its annexure for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Special Education (Visually Handicapped) candidate should have Masters degree with 55% of the marks in the subject of Special Education. He further submits that the General Instructions (a) in Ext.P1 notification describes qualification 'as prescribed by the UGC' and the petitioner has the said qualification and the 6th respondent does not possess the said qualification and he has got only a post graduate degree in Health and Behavioural Science.
W.P.(C) No. 12827/2007 : 4 :
petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16288 of 2006 which was dismissed for default. The prayer in the said writ petition is quoted below for ready reference:
The learned Standing Counsel for the University further submitted that the petitioner does not possess the minimum qualification M.Sc Degree in Health and Behavioural Science and therefore, he is not qualified. It is further submitted that the selection committee earlier constituted which approved the qualification of the petitioner was not a validly constituted one and therefore, the University is justified in cancelling the earlier selection. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess the required qualification in Behavioural Science.
W.P.(C) No. 12827/2007
: 5 :
W.P.(C) No. 12827 of 2007, took a specific stand that according to the screening committee, the petitioner is the only candidate eligible with regard to the qualification and since the selection committee as well as the screening committee was not properly constituted, it was cancelled in pursuance to the direction of this Court and what has been stated in the said counter affidavit is the finding of the then screening committee which was constituted not in accordance with law. The admission of the University that the petitioner is the only candidate eligible with regard to the qualification is the decision of the earlier screening committee and that was quoted in the counter affidavit. Therefore, the question arises for consideration is that whether the writ petition is maintainable particularly when the writ petition No. 16288 of 2006 was dismissed for default and whether the judgment in the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's application has attained finality or not. The second question arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is qualified to be called for the interview.
W.P.(C) No. 12827/2007 : 6 :
in Behavioural Science which is the basic qualification. It is true that the petitioner is a specially trained person to teach the visually handicapped but he cannot be selected in the absence of persons having basic qualification to teach Behavioural Science. Therefore, he could not have been considered particularly when he does not belong to Ezhava Community. Accordingly, the dismissal of earlier writ petition will stand as a bar for the present writ petition as the judgment has attained finality. On a query made by this Court as to whether the petitioner has basic qualification to teach Behavioural Science, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not answer the same. The University Screening Committee as well as the Selection Committee having approved the qualification, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the selection of the 6th respondent as a lecturer. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.
rv
W.P.(C) No. 12827/2007 : 7 :
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is qualified for the post of Lecturer in Special Education given his lack of a Master's degree in Behavioural Science.
Whether the dismissal of the earlier writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 16288 of 2006) acts as a bar to maintain the present petition.
K.R. Jayachandran
Mahatma Gandhi University
Rajesh
B.P. Ray
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
