Dismissed

Sinu P.A v. Central University of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jun 2019WP(C)/6959/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An Associate Professor selection was challenged over alleged API-score manipulation and eligibility. The court dismissed the petition, rejected the manipulation allegations, declined to reassess expert scoring, and held that the challenger lacked the requisite experience without an authorised equivalence for post-doctoral research on consolidated pay.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sinu P.A Vs Central University of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.6959 of 2018

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

SINU P.A ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PADANAKKAD P.O., KASARAGOD - 671 314.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU) SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. SRI.JYOTHISH D.MONY

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, TEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYE P.O., KASARAGOD - 671 316.

¶13

2 DR.G.GOPA KUMAR, VICE CHANCELLOR, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYE P.O., KASARAGOD - 671 316.

¶14

3 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, TEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYE P.O., KASARAGOD - 671 316.

¶15

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶16

¶17

4 DR.SUDHA K, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PADANAKKAD P.O., KASARAGOD - 671 314.

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.V.SAJITH KUMAR, SC, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SRI.S.ANEESH SMT.AMRUTHA SANJEEV SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.05.2019, THE COURT ON 20.06.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

W.P(C) No.6959 of 2018-T

¶24

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2019

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 rank list for appointment to the post of

¶27

Associate Professor in the Department of Animal Science whereby the 4^th respondent is included as rank No.1 and the petitioner is included as Sl.No.1 in the wait list. He also seeks a direction to appoint him in the place of the 4^th respondent.

¶28

The 1^st respondent University issued Ext.P1 notification on 04.12.2015 inviting applications for appointment as faculties in various disciplines, including that of Associate Professor in Animal Science. The essential

¶29

qualification as prescribed by the UGC for appointment as Associate Professor was the following:

¶30

“Associate Professor

¶31

(i) Good academic record with a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned/allied/relevant disciplines.

¶32

(ii) A Master's Degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed).

¶33

(iii) A minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and/or research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University/College or Accredited Research Institution/Industry excluding the period of Ph.D. Research with evidence of published work and a minimum of 5 publications as books and/or research/policy papers.

¶34

(iv) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses, and technology – mediated teaching learning process with evidence of having

¶35

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶36

¶37

guided doctoral candidates and research students.

¶38

(v) A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), set out in this Regulation in Appendix III of UGC Regulations and subsequent amendments.”

¶39

Under the head `Essential Qualification – II' , Master's Degree in Animal

¶40

Science/Zoology/Life Sciences/Bio Sciences and Ph.D in concerned/allied/relevant

¶41

area were prescribed for the post of Professor and Associate Professor in Department of Animal Science. Under clause 6 of the general information it was provided that changes in regulations on qualifications, experience, age, calculation/application of API score etc. issued by the UGC subsequent to the notification will become mandatory from the respective dates of effect prescribed. Under clause 10 it was provided that selection would be made on the basis of performance of the candidates and that the University may utilise seminar and/colloquium as a method of selection. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for the post of Associate Professor in Animal Science. The 1^st respondent published Ext.P3 list of candidates, who were found eligible to be called for interview. After the interview, Ext.P4 rank list was published on 2.3.2017 with the 4^th respondent as rank No.1 and the petitioner as Sl.No.1 in the wait list. He is a Graduate in Zoology with Post Graduation in Applied Zoology and Ph.D in Zoology; he had 38 publications in reputed publications and published books to his credit at the time of submission of application; he was selected as the inspired teacher of Central University of Kerala and participated in the Rastrapati Bhawan's Inspired Teachers Residence Programme and was awarded the Young Scientist award. Petitioner claims to be more meritorious than the 4^th respondent.

¶42

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶43

¶44

Doubting the correctness of the API scores awarded to the 4^th respondent, he submitted Ext.P5 representation before the 2^nd respondent on 3.3.2017. According to him, appointment of Dr.Thasleema as Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science in order to perform the document verification of the 4^th respondent was unwarranted as she was not included in Ext.P6 list of officers included in the verification committee formed for verifying documents submitted by the candidates, which was published on 22.12.2016. On 8.3.2017 the petitioner submitted a complaint before the Chief Vigilance Officer (which was withdrawn later). The petitioner states that on completion of his post doctoral studies in USA for the period from 28.7.2016 to 1.8.2017, he collected documents relating to the selection, on applications under the Right to Information Act. Based on the documents including the score sheet of the 4^th respondent as well as the petitioner, thus received, he alleges that serious manipulations are committed correcting the marks awarded by the screening and selection committee in the score sheets and that the same is made by the 2^nd respondent. It is stated that the marks awarded to him by the screening/selection committee in Ext.P10 score sheet as against the quality of papers/books was 15; but the 2^nd respondent reduced it to 13; 5 marks which was awarded originally towards teaching experience was struck off and later changed to 4; he was denied 2 marks for the DST Young Scientist Post-doctoral award; he was a recipient of Raman Post-Doctoral Fellowship and the selection board denied him marks for international post-doctoral award; he is given only 3 marks for teaching skill. He also alleged that the marks for teaching skill should

¶45

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶46

¶47

not have been clubbed with that of interview. He alleged that the API score was computed contrary to the provisions contained in University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as `Regulations' ) - Ext.P12 as amended in Ext.P13. According to the petitioner, there are only two publications to the credit of the 4^th respondent and the petitioner is more meritorious than the 4^th respondent. He alleged that the marks awarded by screening committee and selection committee were corrected, manipulating the score sheets, reducing his marks as in Exts.P10 and P11. Alleging the manipulations, the petitioner has impleaded the Vice Chancellor in his personal capacity. It is his further contention that there was no transparent, objective or credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants as envisaged in the UGC Regulations.

¶48

In the counter affidavit dated 6.7.2018 the 1^st respondent stated that the petitioner was considered in the selection though he did not have 8 years' continuous service in the cadre of Assistant Professor, as mandated in UGC Regulation, reckoning his experience with Tea Research Association and Asoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment where he was drawing only consolidated pay. It is stated that the 4^th respondent was having more than 22 years of continuous teaching experience in a Post Graduate Department as against the 4 years of continuous service of the petitioner. It is also stated that the 4^th respondent

¶49

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶50

¶51

was having requisite API score of more than 300 which is required for the post. It is stated that the services of Dr.Thasleema was availed for assisting in the document verification due to acute shortage of permanent non-teaching employees and the same is not a serious infirmity. Regarding the alleged manipulations it is stated that all the corrections were incorporated and acknowledged by initialling the corrections and the entire selection committee had put their signature in the score sheet towards approval of re-evaluation of screening committee. It is stated that the petitioner was denied 2 marks for DST Young Scientist award because the same was reckoned towards teaching experience by the screening committee. It is also stated that the petitioner with 4 years' teaching experience was granted 3 marks; whereas the 4^th respondent with 22 years of experience was given only 4 marks. According to them, the selection and appointment were made in accordance with the UGC Regulations which were in force as on the date of the notification. It is stated that the approval of journals in terms of regulations dated 11.7.2016 were done by a sub committee of UGC only in April, 2017 after the interview was held on 16.1.2017 and therefore the regulations of 2016 could not have applied to the selection.

¶52

In the reply affidavit the petitioner has come out with another drawback in selecting the 4^th respondent stating that she does not have the Post Graduate degree in the concerned subject as her Post Graduate Degree is in Marine Biology, which is not included as a qualification for the post in the notification. According to him, as the notification does not provide for acceptance of any

¶53

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶54

¶55

equivalent qualification her selection and appointment are illegal. He claimed that he is fully qualified with his ressearch experience for 2.9 years in the scale of Assistant Professor during 2009-2012 in the pay band 15600-39100 with G.P 6,600. It is stated that in Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment he was a post-doctoral fellow for 3 years from 2006 to 2009 and was having Department of Science and Technology's Young Scientist award. Apart from that, in Central University of Kerala he was having an experience of 3.11 years as Asst.Professor and therefore he was having more than 9 years of experience as on 11.01.2016, the last date for submission of application. Relying on Ext.P24 counter affidavit filed by the University in W.P(c).No.8011/18, produced along with I.A. No. 1 of 2019, the petitioner claims that post-doctoral fellowship can be reckoned for direct recruitment and therefore his post-doctoral fellowship is liable to be reckoned as experience. The petitioner asserts that the API scores were manipulated and the 4^th respondent does not have any academic research to her credit and therefore the API score awarded to her as 345.98 is incorrect and the actual API score admissible to her would only be 309 and that of the petitioner would be 603. According to him, she does not have any publications in any reputed journals; but only in periodicals. It is his case that she is not entitled to any marks towards any research papers in accordance with the UGC regulations and that score claimed by her is not admissible. It is also stated that only projects costing more than Rs.50,000/- are eligible for points in API (III (C)) and therefore inadmissible marks/ points were awarded to the 4^th respondent.

¶56

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶57

¶58

The 4^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit raising various objections including the delay in filing the writ petition on 28.02.2018 pointing out that the assailed rank list was published on 02.3.2017 and her appointment was on 6.3.2017. It is contended that no writ of certiorari can be sought without producing the order of her appointment. She has also objected to the very eligibility of the petitioner to be considered for the post alleging that he did not have 8 years teaching/research experience; his experience as DST Young Scientist at Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment for the period from 1.4.2006 to 04.05.2009 was not on a pay scale/pay band, but was on a consolidated pay basis and it cannot be reckoned towards the minimum teaching experience of 8 years which is mandatory for appointment to the post of Associate Professor, as stipulated in Ext.P1 notification. It is stated that he got only 63 marks in the selection; whereas the 4^th respondent got 73 marks in the selection. It is also stated that the petitioner is not entitled to 2 marks for the DST Young Scientist Postdoctoral award as he was on a consolidated pay. According to the 4^th respondent, being a first class holder in M.Sc Marine Biology, Ph.D in Zoology with teaching experience as Lecturer, Lecturer Sr.Grade, Reader and as Associate Professor from 19.11.1994 to 4.3.2017 and out of her 23 years of teaching experience, 11 years were in the post of Associate Professor drawing pay in the UGC scale. According to her, she had to her credit 24 publications, authored chapters in books, 4 international research fellowships, 2 national research fellowships and a post doctoral fellowship from the Calicut University. She stated that she has 4 major

¶59

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶60

¶61

research projects to her credit including one international research project. She claimed that as against the required score of 300 under the UGC norms, she was having API score of 345.98. It is contended that after participating in the selection the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the award of marks by selection committee constituted by experts in the field and the same is not liable to be interferred with when there is no contention as to bias with respect to any of the members of the selection committee. Along with an additional counter affidavit the 4^th respondent has produced Ext.R4(c) certificate by which the University of Calicut has certified that M.Sc Marine biology is equivalent to M.Sc Zoology in that University. It is also alleged that the petitioner does not have National Eligibility Test certificate and he is ineligible even for appointment as Assistant Professor, because as per the UGC Regulation, 2010, exemption from NET is available only for those Ph.D holders who acquired Ph.D in accordance with University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009 and that the Ph.D acquired by the petitioner is not one under those Regulations.

¶62

The petitioner relies on the judgment dated 21.11.2012 in W.A.No.2014 of 2012 in which this Court held that M.Sc in Life Science cannot be considered as an eligible qualification when the notification prescribed M.Sc in Zoology or Animal Science. The judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Suma v. Keala Public Service Commission [2011 (1) KLT 1 (F.B)] was also relied on in support of the contention that the University does not have the power to go

¶63

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶64

¶65

into the equivalence of the qualification notified by it, when there is no such power conferred on it under the Statute. According to the petitioner, 40% of the Score has to be based on research performance based on API score and quality of publications; the manipulation by the 2^nd respondent resulted in enhancement of marks in the case of the 4^th respondent and reduction of marks in the case of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, if marks were awarded properly, he would have been ranked first.

¶66

The petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in W.P(c).No.32294/2011 which was also a writ petition in which appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Animal Science in the very same University was under challenge. The essential qualification notified was M.Sc Zoology or Animal Science from an Indian University or equivalent degree, if it is from a University abroad. The contesting respondent therein was having M.Sc Life Science. This Court found that M.Sc degree possessed by the 3^rd respondent therein was only in Life Science, which was not the prescribed qualification, namely M.Sc in Zoology or Animal Science. This Court found that the University has not taken any decision or declaration to the effect that M.Sc (Life Science) was to be treated as equivalent to M.Sc (Zoology) or M.Sc (Animal Science) and if at all such a decision was taken, University should have notified the same and in the absence of any power for the selection committee the question of equivalency cannot be gone into by it.

¶67

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶68

¶69

The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment in Udayan v. Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. [2011 (3) KLT 952 (FB)] in which this Court held that when recruitment rules prescribe only a degree in Engineering as the minimum qualification, appointing authority cannot prescribe a first class degree in Engineering. Hence it was argued that the University or selection committee does not have any power to deviate from the qualification. The judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Deepthy Vijayakumar v. Joint Registrar [2008 (4) KLT 321] is relied on in support of the contention that when appointments are made by fraudulent and deceitful means, the entire selection has to be set aside even in the absence of pleadings and when selection is made through manipulation. The judgment in Sugunan v. University of Kerala & Ors. [1984 KLT 1086] is relied on in support of the contention that post-doctoral research involves teaching work and therefore it is liable to be reckoned towards teaching experience.

¶70

On the other hand, Sri P.Nandakumar relies on the judgment in Sunil Kumar P. v. Cochin Devaswom Board, Thrissur & Ors. [2016 (4) KLT 1078] in which a Master's Degree in Mariculture was found to be a relevant qualification for considering candidature for the post of Asst.Professor in Zoology. The said judgment was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A.No.533 of 2016. Relying on the judgments in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Ors. v. Dr. B.S.Mahajan & Ors. [1990(1) SCC 305], Nagamani K.A v. Indian Airlines & Ors. [2009 (5) SCC 515] and M.V.Thimmaiah & Ors. v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. [2008

¶71

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶72

¶73

(2) SCC 119] the learned counsel argued that the power of judicial review is very limited in respect of matters relating to selection when the selection committee, which has got the expertise, has considered the merits of the candidates. It is also pointed out that unless and until the allegations are substantiated by pleadings, the selection shall not be interferred with by judicial review in the absence of any apparent error or violation of rules.

¶74

Heard Advocate S.Prasant for the petitioner, Advocate V. Sajithkumar for the University and Advocate P. Nandakumar for the 4^th respondent.

¶75

The petitioner challenges the selection mainly on the ground that manipulations are made to reduce the API scores, in order to appoint the 4^th respondent. The Vice Chancellor is impleaded alleging that he made corrections and reduced the marks awarded by screening committee and selection committee. In view of the allegations as to manipulations I had called for the records leading to the selection. The Learned Standing Counsel made available the minutes of the selection committee held on 16.01.2017 for the post and the scoresheets of all the three candidates who participated in the interview. The minutes read as follows:

¶76

“The undersigned members of the selection committee duly constituted from out of a panel of experts, approved bythe Executive Council of the University, as per the guidelines of the UGC within the parameters of the Central University Act, 2009, met at Central University of Kerala, Periye Campus on 16^th January 2017, scrutinized the applications and necessary corrections were made in Summary Sheet thereto for the post of Associate Professor (UR) in the department of Animal Science. Out of three canidates shortlisted all the candidates reported and Selection Committee interviewed them. Xxxx”

¶77

Therefore, the allegation that the 2^nd respondent carried out

¶78

manipulations is baseless. It is also pertinent to note that though the Vice

¶79

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶80

¶81

Chancellor is impleaded in his personal capacity, the petitioner has not even suggested anything which would have motivated the 2^nd respondent to favour the 4^th respondent or disfavour the petitioner. Not even an attempt is made to substantiate the alleged favouritism to the 4^th respondent or any personal grudge towards the petitioner. Therefore, the allegations as to manipulation are only to be discarded. By mere allegation against the 2^nd respondent without substantiating the same with sufficient pleading including the motive behind it, the selection cannot be said to be vitiated in any manner. No incident is stated to co-relate a favoured treatment to the 4^th respondent or vice-versa towards the petitioner.

¶82

The next contention of the petitioner that the publications of the 4^th respondent are not liable to be granted the points which are given. He also contends that the research projects of the 4^th respondent are not worthy to fetch any point. These are denied by the 4^th respondent. The petitioner has stated that the marks awarded to the 4 th respondent for various research papers, fellowships, etc. are more than what she deserves. Going by the voluminous number of research papers, the manner in which points are awarded, etc., this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would not conduct a roving enquiry and find out the variation in marks. As held in the judgments in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Ors. v. Dr. B.S.Mahajan & Ors, M.V.Thimmaiah & Ors. v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors, UPSC v. M. Sathiya Priya: (2018) 15 SCC 796 , when the Selection Committee consisting of experts in the field have assessed the candidates for direct recruitment, it is not open to sit over the assessment made by the

¶83

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶84

¶85

Selection Committee as an appellate authority except in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the court to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates, as an appellate authority to the selection committee. The scope of judicial review cannot be extended to awarding of marks to the candidates under various heads after calling for the research papers and publications of the candidates. As per the UGC Regulations it is for the screening committee to verify the API scores. The selection committee has overseen it. It is not a case where the difference in marks is alleged for a pass in a test or a qualification, which can easily be ascertained. The number of publications are too many. Whether each of these publications and research projects carry the points as provided in the tables in Appendix III of the UGC Regulations, cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 226. No malafides are alleged against the selection committee. The corrections alleged to have been made are seen approved by the members of the selection committee. The petitioner has not also impleaded all the members of the selection committee eo-nominee. Therefore the contention raised by the petitioner relying on the judgment in Deepthy Vijayakumar V Joint Registrar :2008(4) KLT 321 is unsustainable.

¶86

Though the allegation of the petitioner is that API score is not awarded as provided in the UGC Regulations in Appendix III, this Court does not have the expertise to award marks for the research papers, publications, projects, etc. All the candidates have produced a series of materials as Annexures to the

¶87

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶88

¶89

application. I am of the view that it is for the UGC or the University to evolve a mechanism to resolve such complaints relating to the computation of API score. At any rate, there is no substantial allegation that the decision of the selection committee is actuated by any malice or bias.

¶90

15. Contention raised by the petitioner subsequent to the filing of the writ petition is that the 4^th respondent is not qualified since she does not have the prescribed Post Graduation in Animal Science or Zoology and that her PG is in Marine Biology. But it is seen that the said contention if accepted will make the petitioner also ineligible, as Ext.P2 application of the petitioner would show that his Post Graduation is in Applied Science. Therefore, the said contention does not deserve consideration. In the present case, Master's degree in Animal Science/Zoology/Life Sciences/Bio Sciences and Ph.D in concerned/allied/relevant area are the qualification prescribed in the notification. However when the petitioner himself is having only a Post Graduate Degree in Applied Zoology, which is also not notified, the said contention of the petitioner is only to be repelled. Therefore, the judgment in W.P.(C) .No.32294/2011, relied on by Sri. Prasant or the judgments relied on by Sri. Nandakumar in Sunil kumar V Cochin Devaswom Bard : 2016(5) KHC 397, judgment in W.P.(C) 5918/2015 or the judgment in Gijo Ittoop (Dr) V Kerala University of Fisheries , or the clarification of the UGC that it is for the University to decide which are the Degrees relevant for a discipline do not require consideration. The judgment in Suma 's case or in Udayan v. Kerala Agro Machinary Corporation Ltd : 2011(3) KLT 952, relied on

¶91

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶92

¶93

by Sri. Prasanth also would not apply to the circumstances of this case.

¶94

When a candidate challenges the rank list and appointment based on it and claims appointment, he has to establish that he is fully qualified. In this context, it is also relevant to examine the contention of the 4^th respondent that the petitioner does not have the requisite teaching/research experience in the grade of Assistant Professor. It is therefore necessary to examine the said contention. The qualification prescribed in Clause 2(iii) of Ext.P1 notification, which is the same as clause (iii) of Regulation 4.3.0 of the UGC Regulation 2010, is the following.

¶95

“(iii) A minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and/or research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University/College or Accredited Research Institution/Industry excluding the period of Ph.D. Research with evidence of published work and a minimum of 5 publications as books and/or research/policy papers.”

¶96

The 4^th respondent claims that the experience of the petitioner as DST

¶97

Young Scientist at Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment for the period from 01.04.2006 to 04.05.2009 cannot be reckoned towards experience as it cannot be equated to that of Assistant Professor and the petitioner was not drawing

¶98

pay in a scale of pay or pay band, but on a consolidated pay. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was drawing only consolidated pay during the aforeasid period. Though the University has reckoned the same towards experience, in view of the contention raised by the 4^th respondent, it is to be exmined whether the said experience can be considered to be one equivalent to that of an Assistant Professor. Eventhough the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in Sugunan 's case ( supra ) and argued that post doctoral research is liable to be

¶99

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶100

¶101

treated as a teaching experience, it is seen that in that case the Division Bench was considering the eligibility of a candidate for appointment as Reader in the Kerala University for which 5 years experience of teaching in a University or College or some experience of guiding research was required. The challenge was against reckoning the 3 year period during which the candidate had undegone advanced studies for Senior Research Programme of the UGC, towards the experience. It was found that five years experience in teaching cannot be construed as 5 years experience as a duly appointed teacher. Referring to the provisions in Rules for award of Senior research Fellowship it was found that Post-doctoral Research involves teaching. However, that judgment would not apply to the present case when experience required herein is as that of Assistant Professor. No rule or guideline is pointed out either by the petitioner or by the University, which equates the post doctoral research as experience equivalent to that of Assistant Professor. Ext.P24 counter affidavit of the University relied on by the petitioner, would show that it was a case where a teacher claimed CAS promotion reckoning the period of post doctoral research and nothing in that affidavit would indicate that the post doctoral research even if on consolidated pay would be reckoned towards experience for appointment as Associate Professor. Moreover, the affidavit of the University by itself will not help the petitioner when the 4^th respondent disputes the eligibility of the petitioner i.e the action of the University in considering the petitioner for selection. In the absence of any regulation or order by the UGC, or any competent body equating such experience as that in the position of Assistant

¶102

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

¶103

¶104

Professor, I find substance in the contention of the 4^th respondent that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for appointment as Associate Professor. In

¶105

the event of non-consideration of the Post-doctoral teaching experience, he would not have been eligible for inclusion even in the waitlist. The judgment in

¶106

Sugunan 's case ( supra ) will not help the petitioner.

¶107

For all these reasons I find that petitioner does not deserve any relief.

¶108

The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶109

Sd/-

¶110

(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

rtr/

W.P(c).No.6959/2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶116

EXHIBIT P1.	TRUE COPY OF EMPL 04.12.2015 ISSUED	OYMENT NOTIFICATION DATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2.	TRUE COPY OF THE THE PETITIONER FO PROFESSOR.	APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY R THE POST OF ASSOCIATE
EXHIBIT P3.	TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONALLY CAL POST OF PROFESSOR IN VARIOUS DEPART RESPONDENT.	LIST OF CANDIDATES LED FOR INTERVIEW FOR THE AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR MENTS PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P4.	TRUE COPY OF RANK VARIOUS TEACHING RESPONDENT.	LIST DATED 02.03.2017 FOR POSTS PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P5.	TRUE COPY OF THE 03.03.2017 SUBMIT THE 2ND RESPONDEN	REPRESENTATION DATED TED BY THE PETITIONER TO T.
EXHIBIT P6.	TRUE COPY OF THE 22.12.2016 ISSUED	NOTIFICATION DATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7.	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE VIGILANCE OFFICER	COMPLAINT DATED 08.03.2017 PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8.	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE	ONLINE RTI REQUEST FORM PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9.	TRUE COPY OF THE GIVEN BY THE CPIO	REPLY UNDER THE RTI ACT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10.	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER OBTAIN	SCORE SHEET OF THE ED UNDER THE RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT P11.	TRUE COPY OF THE ASSOCIATE PROFESS ANIMAL SCIENCE.	MARK-SHEET FOR THE POST OF OR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF

¶117

W.P(c).No.6959/2018 EXHIBIT P12.	21 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND OTHER MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION) REGULATIONS, 2010.
EXHIBIT P13.	TRUE COPY OF THE UGC (MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION)(2ND AMENDMENT), REGULATIONS, 2013.
EXHIBIT P14.	TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS OBTAINED FROM GOOGLE SCHOLAR.
EXHIBIT P24	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN WP(C).NO.8011 OF 2018 EXCLUDING EXHIBITS.
EXHIBIT P25	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.CUK/R/Advt-1/2010- DATED 10.08.2011 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P26	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXT.R1(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.R1(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE CARD SHEET OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.R4(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT DATED 05.01.2016.
EXT.R4(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THIS RESPONDENT AVAILABLE IN GOOGLE SCHOLAR.

Sinu P.A v. Central University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sinu P.A v. Central University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Febin J. Louis Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar a., Vs Kerala Agricultural University

Prasad.P Vs the State of Kerala

Ajith Fredjeev Dinakarlal Vs Marian College

Christ College (Autonomous) Vs State of Kerala

Bibina.v.Antony Vs the State of Kerala