Allowed

Maya.S. v. University of Calicut

Kerala HC5 Dec 2016WP(C)/2010/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined a writ petition challenging a university order that refused to approve assistant professor appointments and directed a fresh selection. The high court held that the syndicate exceeded its powers by reviewing marks awarded by a competent selection committee and set aside the impugned order, directing the university to approve the appointments within one month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order directing reworking of the select list and fresh interview was set aside. The University is directed to approve the appointments of the selected candidates within one month.

Maya.S. Vs University of Calicut — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2010 of 2013 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

MAYA.S., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY, SREE KERALA VARMA COLLEGE, THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.K.N.REMYA SMT.L.AMMU PILLAI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,

¶11

CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN -673 635.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY,

¶13

COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD AND MANAGER, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF SREE KERALA VARMA COLLEGE, THRISSUR AND SREE VIVEKANANDA COLLEGE, KUNNAMKULAM, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, PIN- 680 001.

¶14

3. DR. SHEEJA O.K., W/O MANOJ M.K., MADATHEDATHU HOUSE, THURUTHY P.O., PRALAYAKKAD,

¶15

PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN :683 545.

¶16

4. DR. BAIJU E.B., W/O SAJEEV N.T., ELAYARAMPRAKKAL HOUSE, KOORIKKUZHY P.O., KAIPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR-680 681.

¶17

R1 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN,SC SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC, R2 BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA MENON, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-12-2016, ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 2329/2013 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

WP(C).NO.2010/2013

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1 COPY OF THE RESUME OF THE PETITIONER.

¶24

P2 COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.1906/2010/H.EDN DATED 30/9/2010

¶25

P3 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GAII/C3/2642/2008 DATED 28/01/2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶26

P4 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 06/05/2011 OF THE STAFF SELECTION COMMITTEE

¶27

P5 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H4891/05 DATED 27/06/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶28

P6 COPY OF THE TABULATION SHEET PREPARED BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶29

P7 COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.GA II/E1/3265/95 DATED 11/11/1997

¶30

P8 COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.GAII/F3/3788/11 DATED 03/02/2012

¶31

P9 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/08/2011 IN WPC.NO.23055 OF 2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶32

P10 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/08/2011 IN WP(C).NO.23462 OF 2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶33

P11 COPY OF THE REPORT TO SYNDICATE NO.GA II/C3/2629/11 DATED 14/11/2012

¶34

P12 COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER FOR M.A. (SOCIOLOGY).

¶35

P13 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F.18-15/93-DD.V/TS.IV DATED 01/03/1995 OF THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

¶36

P14 COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY LETTER NO.GAII/C3/2629/2011 DATED 13/12/2012

¶37

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

R4(A) COPY OF THE M.A.RANK CERTIFICATE DATED 07/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶39

R4(B) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE U.G.C. NEW DELHI DATED 18/03/1997 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶40

R4(C) COPY OF THE M.PHIL DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶41

R4(D) COPY OF THE PH.D DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶42

2/-

¶43

-2-

¶44

WP(C).NO.2010/2013

¶45

R4(E) COPY OF THE B.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE FROM CALICUT UNIVERSITY DURING 1999 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶46

R4(F) COPY OF THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY NORMS FOR SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF TEACHING STAFF IN PRIVATE COLLEGES.

¶47

R4(G) COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REGULATION NO.F3-1/2009 DATED 30/06/2010.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶52

W.P(C).Nos. 2010, 2329, 3359 & 25344 of 2013

¶53

Dated this the 19^th December, 2016

¶54

JUDGMENT

¶55

The issue raised in these writ petitions is with regard to approval of appointments made by the selection committee to the post of Assistant Professors in Philosophy in the Sree Kerala Varma College, Thrissur. W.P(C).Nos.2010 and 2329 of 2013 are preferred by the candidates who were appointed pursuant to a selection conducted. W.P(C).No.25344 of 2013 is preferred by the Cochin Devaswom Board, which is the educational agency of the College in question where the appointments were made. W.P(C). No.3359 of 2013 is filed by a candidate who participated in the selection.

¶56

The challenge in the first three of these writ petitions is against the orders of the University refusing to approve the appointments of the selected candidates and directing reworking of the select list and further direction to conduct another interview and constitute a committee comprising competent people for the conduct of interview afresh. The documents and parties are being referred in this judgment as mentioned in W.P (C).No.2010 of 2013 for the sake of convenience.

¶57

WP(C).2010/13 & connected cases

¶58

¶59

It is submitted that by Exhibit P2 Government order dated 30.9.2010, the educational agency was permited to fill up various vacancies in the Colleges run by it. Pursuant to Exhibit P2, a selection committee was constituted as provided in Section 57 of the Calicut University Act ('the Act', for short) and the Calicut University First Statutes, 1979. Advertisements were published as prescribed and applications were received in pursuance thereto. An interview was conducted by the selection committee on 6.5.2011. Exhibit P4 is the minutes. By Exhibit P5 order dated 27.6.2011, the petitioners in W.P(C).Nos. 2010 and 2329 of 2013 who had secured 1^st and 2^nd ranks were appointed. Exhibit P6 is the tabulation sheet showing the marks awarded to the candidates who appeared in the selection.

¶60

It is submitted that respondents 3 and 4, who were unsuccessful in the selection, had approached this Court and by Exhibits P9 and P10 judgments, this Court directed the University to consider their grievances at the time when the appointment of the petitioners is taken up for approval. Thereafter, it is submitted that a sub committee was appointed to look into the matter. The sub committee submitted a report wherein it was found that five

¶61

WP(C).2010/13 & connected cases 3

¶62

marks awarded to the 1^st rank holder for additional qualification of M.A. Sociology of Madras University was erroneous, as correspondence degrees are not recognised by the University. It is further found that six marks awarded to the 2^nd rank holder for teaching experience was not justifiable, since his prior service was not approved. In the above view of the matter, the select list was directed to be modified by deducting five and six marks respectively from the 1^st and 2^nd rank holders. The sub committee found that list was to be recast with Sabina S. as the 1^st rank holder and the 3^rd respondent (petitioner in W.P(C).No.3359 of 2013) as the 2^nd rank holder. The other objector, who had preferred a writ petition which resulted in Exhibit P10 judgment, was included as rank No.4 and the other selected candidates became rank Nos.5 and 6 respectively. On this basis, an order was passed by the Syndicate refusing to approve the appointment of the appointed candidates. Further directions were also issued for conduct of fresh selection. This order is under challenge in these writ petitions.

¶63

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P(C).Nos. 2010 and 2329 of 2013 as well as the learned Standing Counsel

¶64

WP(C).2010/13 & connected cases 4

¶65

for the Cochin Devaswom Board (petitioner in W.P(C).No.25344 of 2013), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P(C). No.3359 of 2013, learned Standing Counsel for the Calicut University and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents in W.P(C).No. 2010 of 2013.

¶66

The primary contention raised against Exhibit P14 order by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the University, while granting approval to the appointment, is empowered only to consider the matters as provided in the Act and Statutes and the award of marks by the duly constituted selection committee is not a matter which can be gone into by the University while considering the question of approval of appointment. It is submitted that Section 57 of the Act provides for appointment to be made by the educational agency by direct recruitment. Section 57(5) of the Act provides for making of appointment after advertising the post in such manner as may be prescribed by the Statutes. Section 57(8), (9) and (10) read as under:

¶67

“ 57. Appointment of teachers in private colleges.-

¶68

xx xx xx

¶69

(8) Every appointment under this section shall be made by a written order of the manager in such form as may be

¶70

WP(C).2010/13

¶71

& connected cases 5

¶72

prescribed by the Statutes communicated to the person to be appointed, with copy to the University.

¶73

(9) Every appointment under this section shall be reported to the University for approval.

¶74

(10) Any person aggrieved by any appointment under this section may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.”

¶75

Statute 3 of Chapter 2 of the Calicut University (Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of Non-Teaching Staff) First Statutes, 1979 provides for advertisement in two English and two Malayalam daily newspapers approved by the University giving a minimum period of thirty days for the aspirants to apply. Statute 4 of Chapter 2 specifies in detail the constitution of selection committee for appointments. Matters like quorum for meetings of the selection committee and the method of selection are also provided in detail in Statutes 5 and 10 of Chapter 2. Statute 14 reads as under:

¶76

“ 14. Approval of appointment:- (1) Approval of every appointment to the teaching post shall be made by the Syndicate subject to the condition that the appointment is in accordance with the staff pattern fixed by the University and that the person so appointed is fully qualified for the post.

¶77

WP(C).2010/13

¶78

¶79

& connected cases

¶80

(2) The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education concerned shall verify before making direct payment of salaries as to whether the post for which payment is claimed is in accordance with the staff pattern and workload fixed by the University. Doubtful cases shall be referred to the University for clarification and the correctness of direct payment ensured.

¶81

(3) In the case of those private colleges coming under the Direct Payment Scheme, the Director of Collegiate Education or the Officer authorised by him in this behalf shall verify in consultation with the University as to whether the teaching posts in private colleges are in excess of the posts sanctioned by the Univesity. However, in the case of incumbents declared as supernumeraries by the University, the controlling officers shall ensure that no fresh appointment is made against future vacancies until all the supernumeraries are absorbed against those vacancies. The direct payment of salaries shall not be made to the persons appointed against fresh vacancies, before the absorption of supernumeraries.”

¶82

In view of the above provision, it is contended by learned

¶83

counsel for the petitioner that the University and its Syndicate were empowered only to verify as to the compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Statutes as also to the possession of the qualification before the appointment is approved. Since

¶84

WP(C).2010/13 & connected cases 7

¶85

Section 57(10) of the Act specifically makes appointments subject to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the aggrieved persons, it is contended that any other matter with regard to award of marks by the duly constituted selection committee could only be challenged by the aggrieved candidates before the Tribunal as provided under Section 57(10). It is, therefore, contended that the University has no manner of power to pass an order in the nature of Exhibit P14.

¶86

On merits also, it is contended that the guidelines for awarding marks which was in force at the time of the selection did not make any distinction between an additional qualification acquired by regular study and through correspondence. It is further contended that even unapproved teaching experience could have been taken into account and it is only in the guidelines issued in 2012 that the requirement of approved service was prescribed. Therefore, it is contended that the findings of the sub committee and the Syndicate were totally erroneous.

¶87

Learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent (petitioner in W.P(C).No.3359 of 2013) would contend that what has been done by the University in the order under challenge is only an

¶88

WP(C).2010/13 & connected cases 8

¶89

arithmetical calculation as regards the marks which could have been awarded to the respective candidates on the basis of the guidelines prescribed by the University for award of marks by the selection committee. It is contended that the tabulation sheet would show that the petitioner had secured very high marks in the total marks awarded for qualifications and teaching experience and had been eliminated from the selection by deliberately granting low marks in the interview as also by granting almost full marks to the selected candidates in the interview. It is submitted that the 1^st rank holder has been given 24 marks out of 25 and the 2^nd rank holder has been given 25 marks out of 25 in the interview to make them eligible for selection as also to eliminate the 3^rd respondent from the select list. It is contended that on an application of Exhibit P7 guidelines and by reduction of marks awarded to the 1^st and 2^nd rank holders illegally, in violation of the guidelines, the 3^rd respondent would be entitled to selection and no further steps as has been directed in Exhibit P14 would be necessary.

¶90

Learned counsel for the educational agency would submit that notification procedures prescribed for selection have

¶91

WP(C).2010/13 & connected cases 9

¶92

been scrupulously followed by the educational agency and there is no justification in the action of the University in interfering with the marks awarded by the selection committee and cancelling the selection as also for the further directions issued in Exhibit P14 order.

¶93

A Division Bench of this Court has in its judgment dated 30.11.2015 in W.A.No.1680 of 2014 held that the Syndicate while considering the question of approval is also empowered to go into the propriety of the selection since all relevant records of the selection committee are forwarded to the University for considering the question of approval. Therefore, it is held that where defects are apparent from only a perusal of the tabulation sheet with reference to the applicable guidelines, without any roving enquiry, any patent illegality noticed can be corrected. In the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench, the question to such patent illegality in award of marks is evident from the face of the record. The question of award of excessive marks in the interview being a matter which could not be verified by the Syndicate, even going by the decision of the Division Bench, I am of the view that the order of the Syndicate refusing to grant

¶94

WP(C).2010/13 & connected cases 10

¶95

approval was unjustified and unsustainable.

¶96

In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that Exhibit P14 which proceeded to go into the award of marks by the duly constituted selection committee was in excess of power and therefore cannot be sustained. The orders impugned are set aside. Consequently, the University is directed to take up the question of approval of appointment of the selected candidates and issue orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case the appointments are approved, respondents 3 and 4 will have the right to take up the matter in appeal in terms of Section 57(10) of the Calicut University Act.

¶97

The writ petitions are ordered accordingly.

¶98

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶99

vgs5/12

Maya.S. v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya.S. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Sundaram Vs the Managing Director, Sbt.

Sheeja N Vs Lice of India

Dinu S.L Vs State of Kerala

R.S. Ajayakumar Vs the Cochin Port Trust

S.Soman Pillai Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Dr.Baiju.K.C Vs the Central University of Kerala