Allowed

Dr.K.Jyothish Kumar v. the University of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Dec 2016WP(C)/6937/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the appointment of the sixth respondent as Associate Professor for non-compliance with UGC Regulations 2010. The court directed the University to re-conduct the selection within three months. The incumbent was permitted to hold the post provisionally.

What did the court decide?

Selection set aside; University directed to re-conduct within 3 months; 6th respondent permitted to hold post provisionally.

Dr.K.Jyothish Kumar Vs the University of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6937 of 2013 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

DR.K.JYOTHISH KUMAR, JRVARA, AKSHAYA NAGAR, NEERAMANKARA, KAIMANAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR-695 034.

¶11

2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.

¶12

3. THE REGISTRAR, THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.

¶13

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

5. THE CHANCELLOR, THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.

¶15

6. DR.SHEEBA M.KURIAN, DEPARTMENT OF MALAYALAM, THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.

¶16

7. THE SYNDICATE OF UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY VICE CHANCELLOR- 695 034.

¶17

..2/-

¶18

..2..

¶19

WP(C).No. 6937 of 2013 (N)

¶20

8. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE OF APPOINTMENT OF LECTURES, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, MALAYALAM DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY VICE CHANCELLOR- 695 034.

¶21

R1 TO R3, R7 & R8 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, S.C ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, S.C ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, S.C R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Msd.

¶24

WP(C).No. 6937 of 2013 (N)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶27

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED THROUGH ON LINE PUBLICATION.

¶28

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13.06.2011.

¶29

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE U.G.C. REGULATION 2010.

¶30

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER FOR INTERVIEW DATED 12.09.2012.

¶31

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PREPARED BY THE CONCERNED SELECTION COMMITTEE.

¶33

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF SYNDICATE PRESCRIBING VERY STRANGE NORMS FOR GIVING INDEX MARK TO CANDIDATES.

¶34

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22.01.2013 GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER.

¶36

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.11.2012 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT CHANCELLOR.

¶37

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT DATED 22.11.2012. (MATHRUBHUMI DAILY).

¶38

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶39

EXHIBIT R3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE NO. AC.C/046592/2012 DATED 09.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.

¶40

EXHIBIT R3(B): TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE NO. AC.C/023969/2012 DATED 09.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.

¶41

EXHIBIT R6(A): TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY TO THE PETITIONER.

¶42

EXHIBIT R6(B): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 06.04.2005 AWARDING DOCTORATE IN PHILOSOPHY IN MALAYALAM TO THE PETITIONER.

¶43

WP(C).No. 6937 of 2013 (N)

¶44

EXHIBIT R6(C): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY UGC TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT FOR PASSING NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TEST ELIGIBILITY FOR LECTURESHIP. EXHIBIT R6(D): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 07.10.2009 ISSUED BY KERALA STATE CHALACHITHRA ACADEMY TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R6(E): TRUE COPY OF ACADEMIC PROFILE OF 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R6(F): TRUE COPY OF CHALAN NOS. 3756 AND 3759 DATED 07.04.2012. EXHIBIT R6(G): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.04.2012 OF UNIVERSITY OF KERALA TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

W.P.(C) No.6937 of 2013

¶51

¶52

Dated this the 1^st day of December, 2016

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

This writ petition challenges the appointment of the

¶55

6^th respondent as Associate Professor in the Department of Malayalam in the Kerala University. The petitioner had specifically raised a claim that appointments in Universities are governed by U.G.C. Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 and that the said Regulations had not been followed in the selection conducted for appointment to the post. It was contended that the non-compliance with Ext.P3 UGC Regulations was the reason for the award of more marks to the 6^th respondent, which had resulted in her being selected and appointed. It

¶56

W.P.(C) No.6937 of 2013 -2-

¶57

was stated that API scores had not been prepared in compliance with Ext.P3 and that the selection conducted in violation of the provisions contained in the UGC Regulations was illegal and is liable to be set aside.

¶58

A counter affidavit has been filed by the University, contending that the 6^th respondent had been appointed in pursuance of the recommendations made by a duly constituted selection committee. It was stated that Ext.P3 UGC Regulations had not been adopted by the University and unless Ext.P3 regulations are implemented in the University, the relevant provisions in the Kerala University First Statute, 1977 and Ext.P7 norms will continue to hold the field. It is further stated that the assertion of the petitioner that the API score calculated under Ext.P3 by the 6^th respondent is patently wrong, is also unsustainable, since the calculation of API scores forms part of Ext.P3 regulations. Therefore, the contention raised by the 3^rd respondent

¶59

W.P.(C) No.6937 of 2013 -3-

¶60

University in the writ petition was specifically that Ext.P3 UGC Regulations are not applicable to the selection. This view was also supported by the Government in its counter affidavit.

¶61

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶62

learned Government Pleader appearing for the 4^th respondent, learned counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University.

¶63

The question raised by the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Radhakrishnan Pillai D. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Others [2016 (2) KLT 245] wherein, it was held that once the State of Kerala had adopted the UGC Regulations, Universities and affiliated colleges in the State are bound to comply with the regulations. It is stated that in the event of a conflict, the University Act and the Statutes framed thereunder, as well as the orders passed under the same, would have to give way to the provisions of the UGC Regulations and pursuant to the

¶64

W.P.(C) No.6937 of 2013 -4-

¶65

adoption of the Regulations by Government Order dated 10.12.2010 with effect from 18.09.2010, all Universities and affiliated colleges in the State are bound to comply with the UGC Regulations. The contention raised by the respondent University to the effect that the University is not bound by the UGC Regulations and that the said Regulations were not applicable to the selection conducted to the post of Assistant Professor in Malayalam, cannot therefore be countenanced. The selection conducted, which was admittedly not in accordance with the Ext.P3 regulations, cannot be sustained.

¶66

In the above circumstances, the selection conducted by the University, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification is set aside. The University is directed to rework the selection conducted pursuant to Ext.P1, in terms of the UGC Regulation and prepare a fresh select list in compliance with the Regulations, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, the 6^th respondent shall be

¶67

W.P.(C) No.6937 of 2013

¶68

-5-

¶69

permitted to hold the post of Assistant Professor in Malayalam

¶70

provisionally and subject to further orders to be passed by the

¶71

University.

¶72

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE

¶73

Dr.K.Jyothish Kumar v. the University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.K.Jyothish Kumar v. the University of Kerala

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

Santhosh.K Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Prakashan Vs State of Kerala

P.N.Sreedharan Nair Vs Kerala Water Authaority

Dr.M.v.Narayanan Vs the Central University of Kerala

Ajayakumar.J Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

O.Malathy Vs State of Kerala