Dismissed

Dr.Sebastian Joseph v. M.G.University

Kerala HC16 Nov 2021WP(C)/10831/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the appointment of a lecturer in Political Science, the Court dismissed the plea. It held that the Tribunal did not exhibit any illegality or perversity. The selection committee, constituted of subject experts, acted within its scope, noting a negligible score difference between candidates, and ultimately, the appointment was upheld.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr.Sebastian Joseph Vs M.G.University — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 10831 OF 2011

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR.SEBASTIAN JOSEPH NEDIYAKALAYIL HOUSE, OLD M.C.ROAD, ETTUMANOOR P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 M.G.UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, P D HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560. 2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, M.G.UNIVERSITY P D HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560. 3 ST.THOMAS COLLEGE PAZHAVANGADI P.O. RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-689 672. 4 MRS.RIGI IDICULA KALLEMANNIL HOUSE WEST OTHARA P.O., THIRUVALLA (LECTURER, IN POLITICAL SCIENCE, ST.THOMAS COLLEGE, PAZHAVANGADI P.O., RANNI) 689 101. 5 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. BY ADVS. SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY SRI SURIN GEORGE IYPE SC MG

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C) NO. 10831 OF 2011

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

In pursuance to the advertisement caused by the 3^rd

¶15

respondent–University inviting applications for filling up the post of lecturer in Political Science, the petitioner and 8 other candidates applied. Interview for the said post was held on 28.05.2009. The 4^th respondent was ranked as No.1 whereas the petitioner as rank No.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the 4^th respondent did not have either M.Phil or Ph.D qualification but only had postgraduation ie., M.A (International Studies) from Goa University, which was not recognised by the Mahatma Gandhi University as equivalent qualification for M.A. (Political Science). Selection Committee overlooked the petitioner as evident from the score sheet Ext.P1. In the result, 4^th respondent was issued appointment order dated 30.05.2009 (Ext.P2). Petitioner submitted two complaints dated 10.06.2009 and 26.07.2009 to the Vice Chancellor of the Mahatma Gandhi University. Vice Chancellor vide order dated 22.12.2009 (Ext.P3) found that the petitioner was more

¶16

WP(C) NO. 10831 OF 2011

¶17

¶18

meritorious than the 4^th respondent and as the educational agency failed to follow the directions contained in the University guidelines and there was a violation of clause 9(B) (a) of the guidelines which prescribes the assessment of merit, advised the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of approaching the Tribunal. The Tribunal Vide Ext.P5 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner which is totally illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. Learned Tribunal erroneously came to the conclusion that the 3^rd respondent was competent to appoint a less meritorious candidate in view of the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. The appointment of the 4^th respondent was void as on the date of appointment but the Tribunal conveniently overlooked the vital aspects and reached at erroneous conclusion that the 4^th respondent is qualified and competent to be appointed as lecturer in political science, ignoring the relevant merit of the petitioner.

¶19

On the other hand the respondents Nos.1 and 2 opposed the aforementioned petition on the ground that the

¶20

WP(C) NO. 10831 OF 2011

¶21

¶22

equivalency certificate equating the M.A. course in International Studies offered by the Mahatma Gandhi University with that of M.A. Politics and international relations of Mahatma Gandhi University was issued to the 4^th respondent on 14.06.2010 Ext.R1(a). The said decision of the Vice Chancellor was later ratified by the Academic Council at its meeting held on 31.07.2010. The Tribunal found that the 3^rd respondent ie., St.Thomas College was a minority educational institution and it is settled legal position that subject to requirement of the minimum qualification and experience prescribed by the statutes for the appointment of teachers, the wisdom of the minority educational institutions in the matter of selection and appointment of teachers has to prevail. The university laws did not provide any unlimited powers to the educational institution at their hands in the matter of appointment of teachers of private aided colleges, rather it is a statutory duty of the selection committee to assess the relative merit of the respective candidates.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

¶24

WP(C) NO. 10831 OF 2011

¶25

¶26

The parameters for interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of an order passed by the Tribunal hinges upon few considerations whether the order is without jurisdiction or the appointment by the selection committee was vitiated; whether the petitioner could challenge the procedure of the selection committee after having participated in the selection process. The Tribunal examined the controversy threadbare and found that though the experience was not the criteria but petitioner had only few months of experience whereas the respondent No.4 had 14 months of experience. Committee gave more marks to respondent No.4 than that of the petitioner, evaluation of relevant merits of the candidates assessed by the selection committee was on the aspects of experience, subject knowledge and suitability. The only error with mathematical precision that could be found was in the nature of awarding no marks for M.Phil degree. Even if due marks of M.Phil degree as per the guidelines of University was notionally granted to the petitioner, the score of the 4^th respondent was less from the petitioner only by 0.09 marks. The selection committee

¶27

WP(C) NO. 10831 OF 2011

¶28

¶29

constituted for selection of lecturers consisted of subject experts. Equivalency certificate was required to be produced before the University by the candidate appointed by the management only at the time of approval of the appointment.

¶30

I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order of the Tribunal to form a different opinion than the one arrived at. No ground for interference is made out. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

nak

WP(C) NO. 10831 OF 2011

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10831/2011

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SCORE SHEET PRAPARED BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30/05/2009 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2/12/2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶40

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/10/2009 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6/1/2011 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TRIBUNAL Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 24/3/2009 ISSUED BY THEDIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATINS AND POLITICS

¶41

RESPONDENT EXHIBIT

¶42

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.ACD/4/2888/10 DATED 14/6/2020 EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NO.ACD/3/4849/2010 DT.30/09/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY

Dr.Sebastian Joseph v. M.G.University

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr.Sebastian Joseph v. M.G.University

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lini B., Vs Government of Kerala

Nainu Vijayan Vs the Principal, Govt. Brennen College Thalassery

Dr. Sumesh. R.V. Vs Dr. Unnikrishnan Nair

V.Binudas Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Kollam

Sijoy Philip Vs the Vice Chancellor

A M Jamal Vs the State of Kerala