Dismissed

V.Sasidharan, v. Union of India

Kerala HC8 Sept 2021WA/1122/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal against the selection of candidates for the post of Registrar. The Court held that the recruitment notification's eligibility criteria regarding administrative experience and grade pay were unambiguous and fell within the University's recruitment policy, warranting no interference.

What the court decided

AI extract

V.Sasidharan, Vs Union of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943

¶7

WA NO. 1122 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27697/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

V.SASIDHARAN, AGED 56 YEARS

¶10

PRIYADARSINI, PALAPPURAM P O, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD - 679103.

¶11

BY ADV GEORGE ABRAHAM

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI- 110001.

¶14

2 CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYA, KASARAGOD - 671316, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶15

3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THEJASWNI HILLS, PERIYA, KASARAGOD - 671316.

¶16

4 A. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, REGISTRAR, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYA, KASARAGOD - 671316.

¶17

5 DR. T. RAGHUNADHAN, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT - 673601.

¶18

WA NO. 1122 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

6. SRI. SUNIL BHASKARAN, INDIAN MILITARY ACADEMY, DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND - 248007.

¶21

7 DR. SHRISHAIL MATH, C/O. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THEJASWNI HILLS, PERIYA, KASARAGOD - 671316. BY ADVS. SRI.V.SAJITH KUMAR, SC, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.S.ANEESH SMT.AMRUTHA SANJE EV SRI.SHYAM PADMAN

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA NO. 1122 OF 2020

JUDGMENT

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

¶27

The petitioner in W.P(C).No.27697/2017 is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.6.2020 of the learned Single Judge.

¶28

The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:

¶29

The appellant/writ petitioner had responded to a notification issued by the Central University of Kerala calling for applications to the post of Registrar. The qualifications required from the applicants to the said post were as follows:

¶30

“i) A Master's degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of 'B' in the UGC seven-point scale in any discipline from a recognized University Institute.

¶31

ii) At least 15 years of experience as Assistant Professor in the AGP of Rs.7000/- and above or with eight years' service in the AGP of Rs.8,000/- and above including as Associate Professor along with experience in educational administration.

¶32

¶33

Comparable experience in research establishment and/or other institution of higher education.

WA NO. 1122 OF 2020

15 years of administrative experience of which 8 years shall be as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post.”

¶38

The appellant, admittedly, possessed the necessary qualifications, including the required experience in the academic stream, as stipulated in the notification. Over and above that, he also had administrative experience on account of service rendered as Controller of Examinations in the same University. It would appear that, pursuant to a selection process that ensued, the appellant was not shortlisted, and only four candidates namely, respondents 4 to 7 were shortlisted as Sl.Nos.1 to 4 in the rank list (Ext.P5). The appellant, after obtaining details of the qualification and experience possessed by respondents 4 to 7 and also details of the marks awarded to the various candidates in the selection process, through applications submitted under the Right to Information Act, approached this Court through the writ petition, impugning the selection of the 4^th respondent as the Registrar of the University on 17.10.2016. Inasmuch as he had a case that the shortlisting of the candidates itself was improper and pursuant to a mistake in the marks awarded to various candidates, he also impugned the inclusion of respondents 5 to 7 in the rank list.

¶39

WA NO. 1122 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

The main ground of challenge in the writ petition was regarding the eligibility of respondents 4 to 7 for consideration to the post in question. While the appellant admitted that the said respondents had the required administrative experience that was stipulated in the notification, his case was that they did not have the administrative experience in a post that attracted the grade pay applicable to the post of Deputy Registrars in the Universities that were governed by the Pay Revision orders issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Ext.P1). In other words, the contention of the writ petitioner was that, when the notification used the phrase “15 years of administrative experience of which 8 years shall be as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post”, a person claiming experience in a post equivalent to that of Deputy Registrar had necessarily to show that the experience was in a post that not only involved duties akin to that of a Deputy Registrar but also attracted a grade pay equivalent to what was applicable to a Deputy Registrar under the Central University of Kerala. Applying the said test, the appellant contended that respondents 4 to 7 did not have the necessary experience in a post equivalent to that of Deputy Registrar, and hence, they ought not to have been shortlisted by the respondent University.

¶42

WA NO. 1122 OF 2020

¶43

¶44

Another contention of the appellant was that while awarding marks for the work experience of the candidates, the University erroneously awarded weightage marks in respect of the years of experience that had already been considered for the purposes of determining the eligibility of the candidate in question. It was the case of the appellant that while awarding weightage marks for work experience (four marks for every year of experience), the weightage marks ought to have been granted only for the years over and in addition to the years of experience which had already been reckoned for determining the eligibility requirement of the candidates. Thus, in the context of the notification issued by the respondent University, only such years of administrative experience, as were over and above 8 years in the post of Deputy Registrar or equivalent post, could be reckoned for the purposes of weightage marks for work experience. Based on the aforesaid argument, the appellant contended that the marks awarded to respondents 4 to 7 were exorbitant, and while the appellant himself should have obtained the full 20 marks for the experience that he possessed, respondents 4 to 7 ought not to have been awarded the full marks that they were awarded by the Selection Committee.

¶45

WA NO. 1122 OF 2020

¶46

¶47

Lastly, it was contended by the appellant that the 4^th respondent had not produced supporting documents to support the claims made in his application. In particular, it was pointed out with reference to the 4^th respondent that he had produced his experience certificate only after the last date stipulated by the University for receipt of applications. It was his contention therefore, that inasmuch as the 4^th respondent had not submitted an application, complete in all respects, before the last date prescribed for receipt of application, his candidature could not have been considered by the respondent University.

¶48

A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the University, refuting the contentions in the writ petition, and in particular, pointing out that the experience requirements of persons, who applied based on their years of administrative experience, was not qualified by a further requirement that the experience must be rendered in a post which attracted any particular grade pay. It was contended that the prescription of eligibility conditions and qualifications is a matter of recruitment policy of the University and could not be interpreted in a manner that went against the prescription in the notification. With regard to the contention of

¶49

WA NO. 1122 OF 2020

¶50

¶51

the petitioner as regards award of marks for work experience, it was clarified that the weightage marks were awarded for administrative experience of the candidates and was held to cover the entire period of such experience including the experience that qualified for the purposes of essential qualifications under the notification. Inasmuch as respondents 4 to 7 had more than five years of administrative experience, they were awarded 20 marks that was the maximum, that could be awarded under that head. The appellant, on the other hand, had only four years of administrative experience that qualified for the award of weightage marks on the criteria mentioned above, and hence, he was awarded only 16 marks. Lastly, with regard to the contention that the 4^th respondent had not produced any supporting document along with his application, it was pointed out that while there was a general instruction that supporting documents had to be provided by all candidates along with their applications, the documents proving the work experience of the candidates was not seen as essential by the University for the purposes of supporting an application. It is the definite stand of the University that so long as the candidates produced the certificates showing work experience at the time of interview or even later before taking up the appointment, that would have sufficed for the University.

¶52

WA NO. 1122 OF 2020

¶53

¶54

The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, took note of the stand of the University in its counter affidavit, and on the issue of award of marks to the candidates who were considered, found that this was purely an academic matter that did not warrant an interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition by also holding that there was no allegation of mala fide raised against the Selection Committee or any of its members which might have been a ground that could have warranted an interference by this Court with the decision of the Selection Committee.

¶55

Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.George Abraham would reiterate the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge. He would emphasize on the aspect of essential qualifications prescribed in the notification, and in particular, on the nature of the experience that was required for a candidate claiming experience in a post equivalent to that of Deputy Registrar. It is his specific case that while computing eight years administrative experience in the post of

¶56

WA NO. 1122 OF 2020

¶57

¶58

Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post, a candidate claiming the benefit of such experience in a post equivalent to that of Deputy Registrar had necessarily to be drawing a grade pay as applicable to Deputy Registrars under the Central University of Kerala. In support of his contention, he places reliance on Ext.P1 notification issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development while revising the pay scales for the post of Deputy Registrars, Assistant Registrars etc. in their capacity as Central Government Employees based on the recommendations of the 6^th Central Pay Commission.

¶59

Persuasive though the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant may appear at first blush, we find ourselves unable to accept the said contentions especially in view of the express and unambiguous stipulation in Ext.P21 notification. We note from the said notification that where the University deemed it necessary to prescribe an experience in a post attracting a specific grade pay, the University mentioned the same as a requisite qualification, whereas, it has deliberately chosen not to insist on such grade pay requirement when it came to specifying the years of administrative experience required in the post of Deputy Registrar or equivalent post. The choice of the

¶60

WA NO. 1122 OF 2020

¶61

¶62

University in prescribing essential qualifications is a matter of recruitment policy, and in such matters, it is trite that this Court cannot interfere with proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We cannot also read in concepts which are not there in the notification issued by the University. We therefore reject the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶63

Coming next to the contention regarding awarding of marks for work experience, we find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the work experience that qualified for weightage marks was only such experience as was not already reckoned for the purposes of determining the essential qualification under the notification. We are of the firm view that notwithstanding the stipulation of work experience as essential qualification, the very same experience can also qualify for the purposes of weightage, if so desired by the University for the purpose of inter-se evaluation of the candidates before it. Here again, the criteria that should be adopted, and the weightage marks that should be awarded for specific experience/qualifications, is a matter of recruitment policy as far as the University is concerned, and in the absence of

¶64

WA NO. 1122 OF 2020

¶65

¶66

any established mala fides, either factual or legal, this Court will be loath to interfere with the decision of the Academic Body. On this point also therefore, we find against the appellant.

¶67

Lastly, with regard to the contention that the 4^th respondent had not produced supporting documents before the last date for receipt of applications, we find that it has been the definite stand of the University that the non-production of the experience certificate before the last date of receipt of applications was not considered as fatal to the candidature of an applicant. That apart, the case law on the subject reveals that it is only in such cases where the entity calling for the applicants insists that documents supporting an application must be received by it before the last date specified in the notification calling for receipt of applications, that the courts have viewed the non submission of documents before the said date as fatal to the candidature of the applicant. On the other hand, where the entity calling for the applications chooses to extend the time for production of documents, then the courts usually defer to the decision of the entity. We are also in agreement with the learned Single Judge that in the absence of any established mala fides either factual or legal against any of the members of the Selection

¶68

WA NO. 1122 OF 2020

¶69

¶70

Committee or with regard to the selection process, this Court would be loath to interfere with the same in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, for the reasons stated by the learned Single Judge, as supplemented by the reasons contained in this judgment, the writ appeal fails, and is accordingly dismissed.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶73

JUDGE

¶74

Sd/MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

¶75

V.Sasidharan, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

V.Sasidharan, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Geethu R.Prasad

State of Kerala Vs Reshma Salim

Shaji K.C Vs Calicut University

Dr.K.D.Prathapan Vs Kerala Agricultural University

The State of Kerala, Vs Anjana K.A.

Travancore Devaswom Board, Vs R. Kishor