Dismissed

Dr. Prabhakaran Nair V.R v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Kerala HC19 Mar 2021WP(C)/25594/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenge to the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent as Associate Professor in a university school, on the ground that he lacked the prescribed qualifications, publications and minimum API score. The court held that the selection committee's assessment is not to be substituted in judicial review absent pleaded and proven mala fides, and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr. Prabhakaran Nair V.R Vs Mahatma Gandhi University — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

DR. PRABHAKARAN NAIR V.R., AGED 42 YEARS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, SANATANA DHARMA COLLEGE (S.D COLLEGE), ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS - P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686 560, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR.

¶11

2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS – P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686 560.

¶12

3 THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT, SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS - P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686 560.

¶13

4 SUJITHKUMAR PARAYIL, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY, J.N.U CAMPUS, NEW DELHI - 11O 067.

¶14

*ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED

¶15

5 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE, NOTIFICATION NO.AD.A.II(I)/5038/2017/ADMN(3), FACULTY RECRUITMENT – ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS – P.O. KOTTAYAM – 686 560, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON (THE VICE CHANCELLOR)

¶16

*ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2021

¶17

R1 TO R3 BY SRI.ASHOK M.CHERIAN, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2021, THE COURT ON 19-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 19^th day of March 2021

¶23

Two pedagogues are fighting amongst themselves for getting appointment as an Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences of the Mahatma Gandhi University. Pursuant to Ext.P2 notification, an interview was conducted and the 4^th respondent was declared as the first rank holder, while the writ petitioner received a close second.

¶24

By the time the 4^th respondent got himself relieved from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and came down to join the 3^rd respondent, petitioner had obtained a stay of appointment from this Court in this case. Thus the post of Associate Professor in

¶25

the School of Social Sciences, Mahatma Gandhi University, lies unfilled for the last more than two and a half years.

¶26

Grievance of the writ petitioner is that selection and appointment of the 4^th respondent was highly arbitrary and unreasonable, since he lacks the qualification prescribed for the post and failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria, which rendered the 4^th respondent even incompetent to participate in the interview, let alone be selected. The writ petition, which initially contained only seven

¶27

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶28

¶29

documents as exhibits and five grounds has, by the time it was heard, transformed into a voluminous bundle with a total of sixty six exhibits and several allegations raised as challenges to the selection of the 4^th respondent.

¶30

The grounds raised in the writ petition were very brief and general in nature. The gist of the allegations raised in the writ petition was that the 4^th respondent did not satisfy the qualifications prescribed as per the UGC (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 (for short 'Regulations'). It was pleaded that the Ph.D Degree of the 4^th respondent did not satisfy the minimum qualification prescribed since it was not in the same subject as the Master's degree and that it was not recognized by the Mahatma Gandhi University. It was also alleged that the research papers of the 4^th respondent had not been published in a single UGC approved journal and that the distribution of marks obtained by the selected candidate therefore was suspect.

¶31

As mentioned earlier, as the litigation progressed, the scope of the writ was enlarged by repeated filing of affidavits, however without necessary amendments to the pleadings. In the

¶32

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶33

¶34

additional affidavits that were filed, either as reply affidavit or as rejoinders, writ petitioner raised contentions relating to the 4^th respondent's lack of post doctoral fellowship, lack of minimum API score and the award of marks for his academic background as contrary to the prescribed conditions. No specific allegation of malafides have been pleaded and none have been impleaded in their persona capacity. However, petitioner claims that his credentials are all highly worthy, including his Ph.D from JNU and hence vaunts that he should have been awarded the first rank.

¶35

The first respondent University filed a statement pleading that the selection committee found the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent as fulfilling the conditions prescribed in clause 4.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and after interview, ranked the 4^th respondent as the first rank and the petitioner as the second rank. The proceedings of the selection committee was approved by the Syndicate of the University on 30.06.2018 and it was thereafter that Ext.P6 order appointing the 4^th respondent as Associate Professor was issued. The statement further pleaded that the Master's Degree and the Doctoral degree are not insisted by the Regulations to be in the same subject and further that the Ph.D secured by the 4^th respondent was in cultural studies which was one of the subjects

¶36

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶37

¶38

under the Faculty of Social Sciences and the same was considered as suitable. It was also mentioned that the Ph.D Degree obtained by candidates from Deemed Universities and other recognized Indian Universities are reciprocally recognised and that the absence of Manipal University in the online portal of equivalence/ eligibility certificate does not mean that the courses of that University was not recognized. It was also averred that the mapping of various universities was only under process and the absence of a university in the online portal did not signify absence of recognition. The University further reiterated that as a deemed University, the Ph.D Degree obtained from such a University cannot be said to be not recognized by the Mahatma Gandhi University. It was also mentioned that the selection committee after scrutinizing the documents and the credentials of the 4^th respondent decided to accept all the degrees obtained by the candidate from various recognised Indian Universities and after considering both the candidates, unanimously decided to select the 4^th respondent as the most suitable candidate for the post of Associate Professor. Regarding the satisfaction of the eligibility criteria, it was pleaded that the 4^th respondent had eight publications as research paper/ books instead of the required five, stipulated by Clause 4.3 of the

¶39

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶40

¶41

University Regulations and that, among the eight publications, four of the research papers were published in UGC approved journals. It is stated that the 4^th respondent has also published a book in the year 2003. The selection committee thus decided to accept five publications out of the above as satisfying the requirement of Clause 4.3 to enable consideration of the 4^th respondent’s candidature. According to the University, though both the two candidates had good academic track record, the selection committee on the basis of marks secured at the interview, found the 4^th respondent to be the first rank holder and that the selection process was conducted in a transparent way and in accordance with Regulations. As a concluding note, the University had also stated that the 4^th respondent was at the time of selection working in one of the most prestigious institutions in the country, which itself evinces the merit of the 4^th respondent.

¶42

The 4^th respondent controverted the averments in the writ petition and stated that it was not actually he who was underqualified for the post but that it was the writ petitioner, who was not qualified to even participate in the interview. In support of 4^th respondent's credentials, he pleaded that he holds a Master's Degree in Interdisciplinary Social Sciences (a branch of History) from the

¶43

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶44

¶45

Faculty of Social Sciences, Mahatma Gandhi University apart from Master of Philosophy in History from the University of Hyderabad and a Ph.D. obtained from the Manipal University in 2007 which is not only a deemed University, but also recognized as an Institute of Eminence. In further justification of his qualifications, the 4^th respondent stated that he was employed as a fellow at the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta for almost one year and that he was appointed as an Assistant Professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. He also claimed that he had served as the Dean of the School of Interdisciplinary Studies, English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad and that from 02.04.2014 onwards, he was working as Assistant Professor at the JNU, New Delhi. According to the 4^th respondent, he has research papers, 8 in number, published in various journals and that three students were awarded Ph.D Degree under his supervision and thus he claims to be fully qualified for the post.

¶46

Reply affidavits have been filed thrice by the writ

¶47

petitioner while rejoinder was filed by the 4^th respondent to the reply affidavit of the petitioner. A further petition for accepting documents had also been filed by the writ petitioner.

¶48

I have heard Adv.Vinod Madhavan, the learned counsel

¶49

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶50

¶51

for the petitioner, Sri.Ashok M.Cherian, the learned Standing Counsel for the University and Adv.P.K.Ravishankar, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶52

Adv.Vinod Madhavan while reiterating the contentions

¶53

in the writ petition, submitted that the difference in the marks awarded at the interview between the two candidates, as seen from the statement of the University was only 1.71, but as seen from Ext.P17, 4^th respondent was wrongly granted five marks for post doctoral fellowship. The counsel invited my attention to Ext.P23 apart from Exr.P22 and Ext.P66 and contended that 4^th respondent did not have a post doctoral fellowship but only a letter of invitation to act as a visiting fellow at an international University. It was also argued that the 4^th respondent lacked even the basic eligibility to apply for the post notified, since he had only four research papers as against the five required and that as evident from Ext.P19, ISBN number was fraudulently inserted as '0000' so as to avoid rejection for failure to provide the mandatory ISBN number. The learned counsel also contended that the minimum API score of 300 required for being selected for the interview could not have been attained by the 4^th respondent and that he could have obtained at the most only 294 marks instead of 324.5 granted to him under Ext.P30. In conclusion,

¶54

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶55

¶56

it was argued that the 4^th respondent had not submitted the equivalency certificate specified under the notification and the same ought to have resulted in rejection of his application.

¶57

The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, on the other hand, argued that the writ petitioner has over the course of the proceedings attempted to expand the scope of the writ petition to enter into a roving enquiry into areas which have not been pleaded at all. The counsel also submitted that the Regulations provide for a different type of assessment at each stage of the recruitment process and none can dispute the merits of the 4^th respondent. He also points out that the equivalency certificate though stipulated by the notification was not produced by the petitioner for his Masters Degree and the 4^th respondent for his Ph.D Degree and if the selection committee had chosen to ignore the absence of the equivalency certificate for both candidates, the same cannot be found fault with especially when both candidates were treated equally.

¶58

Adv.Ashok M.Cheriyan, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that no allegations of mala fides or bias have been alleged either against the University or against the selection committee and also that the Ph.D degrees of deemed universities are recognized. He submitted that the selection committee that consisted of five

¶59

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶60

¶61

eminent experts (wrongly mentioned as 8 experts in the statement) had considered the relative merits and scrutinised the documents and came to a conclusion. As experts, they have carried out their functions in accordance with law and according to him, this Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review may not be justified in interfering with the process of selection in the absence of any allegations of mala fides.

¶62

I have considered the rival contentions. Even though in an attempt to render justice, a Court may feel compelled to wander to areas beyond the realm of pleadings, precedents compel that this Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review shall confine itself to the pleadings and test every case on the basis of the pleadings put forth through the foundation provided in the original petition.

¶63

Viewed in the above light, it can be seen that the writ petition was filed with the basic general pleading that the 4^th respondent fell short of the eligibility criteria and ought not to have been permitted to participate in the interview. No specific grounds of mala fides or bias were pleaded in the writ petition and none have been impleaded in a personal capacity. Thus this writ petition is to be dealt with as one without any allegation of mala fides.

¶64

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶65

¶66

At the threshold of the discussion, it is necessary to mention that, the Rules framed by the High Court of Kerala specify that, no ground shall be relied upon unless it is sought for in the original petition. For the purpose of reference Rule 155 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 are extracted as below :

¶67

155. New ground or relief not to be raised.- No ground shall be relied upon and no relief sought at the hearing except the grounds taken and reliefs sought in the Original Petition and the accompanying affidavit :

¶68

16 . The significance of the above quoted Rule was felt in

¶69

the instant case as this Court had to wade through a maze of pleadings and documents to understand the contentions raised. Reading through several affidavits and numerous documents which were not paginated serially, as well as searching for the documents produced at different times, added to the confusion in identifying the true nature of challenge. This Court had in the decision in Narayanan v. State of Kerala [1993 (1) KLT 461] observed as below:

¶70

“it is necessary that all amendments to an original petition either in the averments or the prayers in the original petition or by way of production of new documents should be carried out in the original petition besides producing copies of

¶71

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶72

¶73

the amended original petition for the use of the court and for service on a contesting respondent......Having regard to the numbering of this annexure, it is clear that the petitioner intended that also to be treated as part of the original petition. But it has made its appearance in a petition for direction without being followed by any petition for amendment of the original petition. Production of such documents along with applications for interim relief to be treated as exhibits in the main petition also causes difficulties to the court and such production is not followed up by appropriate amendment. One of the problems that may arise is that the exhibits in question will remain unexplained and unanswered in any counter affidavit that may be filed by the respondents as it does not form part of the original petition itself. …......”

¶74

In the instant case, as mentioned earlier, the original petition was filed with seven exhibits and very few grounds. But, in the reply affidavits that were filed and in the petitions to accept the documents, together, increased the exhibits to sixty six number and the pleadings also expanded. It is necessary that the parties to the lis adhere strictly to the provisions under Rule 155 of the High Court Rules. Documents required to be relied upon must form part of pleadings and if they are not filed along with the original petition, amendment must be sought for.

¶75

Be that as it may, the scope of interference in the recruitment process of academic bodies have been considered

¶76

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶77

¶78

by the Supreme Court in several decisions. The learned Standing Counsel invited my attention to the decisions in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. K.Kalyana Raman (Dr.) and Others [(1992) Supp (2) SCC 481] , Kumar Bar Das (Dr.) v.Utkal University And Others [(1999) 1 SCC 453] and B.C.Mylarappa@ Chikkamylarappa (Dr.)v. R.Venkatasubbaiah (Dr.) and Others [(2008) 14 SCC 306] . The above decisions lead to the conclusion that a selection committee is a purely administrative body and in the absence of proven mala fides, the decision of such selection committees ought not to be interfered with by the court in exercise of the powers of judicial review. It can also be understood that, unless the allegations levelled by one of the rival contesting parties is substantiated beyond doubt, interference with the selection process ought not to be made lightly.

¶79

No person can claim selection as a matter of right. The selection committee is mandated to carry out an overall assessment of the performance of each candidate and in that process adopt the same standards, yardsticks and norms. The selection may call for interference only when the process of assessment is vitiated on grounds of malafides or bias or arbitrariness. Further the Courts should be loathe to delve into issues raised by persons who were

¶80

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶81

¶82

unsuccessful in the selection process, especially in the absence of proven malafides. The above propositions can be derived from the decisions in Union of India and Another v. A. K Narula [(2007) 11 SCC 10] and Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai V. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Others [(2007) 8 SCC 644] .

¶83

It has also been held in the decision in Dalpat

¶84

Abasaheb Solunke and Others v. B.S Mahajan (Dr.) and

¶85

Others [(1990)1 SCC 305] , that it is not the function of the court to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates and the court has no expertise to identify which candidate is fit for a particular post and the scope of interfering with such a selection process by a court under Article 226 is very limited and the court cannot sit in appeal or substitute its views to that of the selection committee. Scrutinizing the reactive merits of each candidate is also not the function of Courts while exercising the power of judicial review. It has also been held that undue interference by the courts may result in paralysing the administration as it is seen in the present case, since for the last 2 years, by an interim order of this court, the post of Associate Professor with the 3rd respondent is lying vacant. As held in the decision in Basavaiah (Dr.) v. H.L Ramesh (Dr.) and Others

¶86

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶87

¶88

[(2010) 8 SCC 372] , the court cannot assume the role of a selection committee and is not entitled to substitute its opinion and devise its own method of evaluating fitness of a candidate for a particular post. It would be going too far if the court itself evaluates a fitness or otherwise of a candidate.

¶89

Evaluating the marks awarded, analysing the incorrectness or wrong calculation of the marks awarded are all matters not within the scope of judicial review, especially in the absence of any malafides or glaring arbitrariness, pleaded and and proven. The marks to be awarded, that too in an interview, is a matter that is relative and cannot be the basis of a subjective analysis by a court of law. Ordinarily, the courts should show deference to the wisdom of the selection committee in their assessment of the relative merits of the candidates and the marks awarded by the selection committee and not assume to itself the said role.

¶90

With the above principles in mind, when the case on hand is appreciated, it can be understood that the selection was conducted on the basis of Ext.P2 notification issued under the Regulations. The recruitment methodology is stipulated in Clause 3 of Ext.P13. It provides that the direct recruitment to the post of

¶91

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶92

¶93

Associate Professors shall be on the basis of merit through All India advertisement and selections are to be carried out by a duly constituted selection committee. The minimum qualifications required are those stipulated in Clause 4.3.0 of the Regulations, which are as

¶94

follows :

¶95

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

¶96

(ii) A Masters' Degree with atleast 55% marks.

¶97

(iii) A minimum of 8 years of experience of teaching/ or research in 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 .

¶98

(iv) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses and technology–mediated teaching learning process with evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students . (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 3 .

¶99

Clause 4.3 of the Regulations stipulate the basic conditions to be satisfied. Though the pleadings in the case are found

¶100

wanting to justify the arguments raised at the time of hearing, and the lack of amendment to incorporate additional grounds and exhibits

¶101

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶102

¶103

into the original petition legally disentitles any consideration by this Court of the various claims put forth, still, in order to do justice to the arguments addressed, the contentions raised and argued are dealt with one by one as below :-

¶104

(i). Allegation of lack of Ph.D. Degree in the required subject.

¶105

Ext.P2 adopts the Regulations for the qualifications. The first qualification prescribed in the Regulations is Ph.D in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline. What is a concerned/allied/relevant discipline has not been specified. The discipline for which applications were invited were subjects under Social Sciences. Whether a particular Ph.D comes under a concerned or allied or relevant discipline is a matter for the experts to decide. When such a wide terminology is prescribed in the Regulations and the same is adopted in the notification, the intention of the first respondent is clear that the choice must not be confined to any particular subject but must have a wider coverage. The statement of the University that the Ph.D of the 4^th respondent was in cultural studies which was one of the subjects under the Faculty of Social Sciences and the same was considered as suitable cannot in he circumstances, be found fault with. Further, in the nature of terminology used in the regulations, this Court cannot, in exercise of

¶106

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶107

¶108

power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sit over the decision of the expert body. When the selection committee accepted the Ph.D of the 4^th respondent as coming within the expressions 'concerned/ allied/ relevant discipline', in the absence of any proven mala fides, interference with such a decision cannot be done.

¶109

(ii). Subject for Ph.D is different from the Masters Degree.

¶110

It was contended that the subject for Ph.D of the 4^th respondent was different from the Masters degree he had obtained. A perusal of the qualifications prescribed under the regulations, when read with Ext. P2 notification, it is explicit that while describing the qualification, the University did not intend that the subject of Ph.D must be in the subject as the candidate's Master's degree. When the notification and the Regulations do not stipulate such a prescription, it is not for this Court to read into the notification something which is not provided for. In fact, it is evident that the University never intended that the candidate must have his Ph.D in the same subject as his Masters Degree as otherwise the same would have been prescribed in the notification.

¶111

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶112

¶113

(iii). Absence of minimum 5 publications.

¶114

Clause 4.3.0(iii) stipulates that the candidate must

¶115

have a minimum 8 years of experience in teaching with evidence of published work and a minimum of 5 publications as books and/or research/policy papers. Publication in UGC approved journal is not a requirement stipulated. In the statement of the University, it refers to four research papers of the 4^th Respondent as published in the UGC approved journal and four other published works. A perusal of the qualifications prescribed in the clause mentioned above shows that the 5 publications required as minimum eligibility are not stipulated as requiring publication in a UGC approved journal. It is not legally justifiable to read into a condition of eligibility, what is not specified. In fact, the statement of the University goes to show that the 4^th respondent has 8 research papers/books submitted by him, out of which four research papers are published in UGC approved journals. The 5 publications stipulated as per the eligibility clause are taken from the above mentioned 8 publications. In such a view of the matter, this court is of the view that the 4^th respondent satisfied clause (iii) of the eligibility criteria.

¶116

th (iv). 4 respondent does not have a minimum API score of 300.

¶117

As per category IIIB of the Regulations, a minimum

¶118

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶119

¶120

API score of 300 is prescribed which is to be assessed based on verifiable records and to be finalised by the screening evaluation committee. In category IIIB, a minimum score of 30 per book published by international publishers with ISBN/ISSN numbers approved by the University is required to be given. It has been canvassed that the 4^th respondent could not have obtained the minimum score of 300 required for two reasons. The first point canvassed under this head relates to absence of ISBN number for one of the publications to overcome which, 4^th respondent had inserted '0000' in the application for one of the publication since 4^th respondent has only four publications with ISBN number. The second point relates to marks awarded for guiding candidates for doctoral degree. It was argued that award of 30 marks on the above two counts was illegal and hence if the said marks are deleted, the 4^th respondent falls below the minimum requirement of 300 marks.

¶121

The contentions raised as above, though impressive, especially the one relating to the absence of ISBN number for one of the publications, is however required to be approached in a different manner in the peculiar facts of the case. The writ petition does not contain any allegation of absence of minimum score under the API. The aforesaid contention is taken up in the reply affidavit and the

¶122

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶123

¶124

rejoinder filed by the writ petitioner. Appropriate amendments have not been made by the writ petitioner even after realizing the availability of such grounds. Strict applicability of API score on the date of selection and the manner in which the scores are to be tabulated are areas of disputed facts which obviously required stronger foundations in the pleadings for this Curt to decide. In the said circumstances this Court is constrained to avoid determining the said disputed questions of fact.

¶125

The aforesaid conclusion is also fortified by the fact that in order to determine the correctness of the above submission of the counsel for the Petitioner, this Court will have to undertake a calculation of the various scores awarded to the 4^th respondent and indulge in a process of addition or subtraction and even multiplication. Mathematical calculations or attempts at doing so are not to be resorted to, in exercise of power of judicial review, except in rare circumstances. Proven mala fides, glaring arbitrariness, selection of a totally incompetent and ineligible candidate, are some of the circumstances when this Court can resort to such an attempt. This is not such a rare situation warranting this Court to indulge in such a mathematical exercise. Thus, I am of the view that award of marks and the quantum awarded cannot be the subject of judicial

¶126

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶127

¶128

review in the absence of specific materials pleaded and proved. What are the marks to be added or subtracted or multiplied with and what are to be awarded are all matters within the realm of the authority of the selection committee and in the absence of any specific malafides pleaded, it would not be justiciable for the court under Article 226 to interfere with such calculation of score.

¶129

(v). Absence of Post Doctoral Fellowship.

¶130

The allegation of absence of post doctoral fellowship is also raised as an afterthought. The pleadings in that regard are completely absent in the writ petition. What is a post-doctoral fellowship is not pleaded in the writ petition. Ext. P23 is stated to be the certificate produced by the 4^th respondent as evidence of the post-doctoral fellowship obtained by him. It is contented that the same is only a letter and not a certificate. Though the term fellowship can have different connotations, in the absence of a specific definition for the said term in the notification or Regulations, the Court cannot import the meaning ascribed by either of the parties to the said term. In such a scenario, it is only prudent for the Court to leave it to the wisdom of the expert body. If the Selection Committee has sought to accept Ext.P23 as sufficient indication of the post-doctoral fellowship, then it is not for this Court to interfere

¶131

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶132

¶133

with such acceptance, especially in the absence of any specified guidelines on what are to be treated as fellowship.

¶134

(vi). Absence of equivalency certificate.

¶135

The Ph.D degree obtained by the 4^th respondent is

¶136

from Manipal University - an institution outside the State of Kerala. Clause III(6) of general conditions in Ext.P2 notification stipulates that equivalency certificate must be submitted for degrees obtained from outside the Universities in the State. The Ph.D degree of the 4^th respondent is from a deemed university. The Masters degree of the petitioner is from the Jawaharlal Nehru University. Both the said Universities are outside Kerala and a strict compliance to the clause in the general condition would have resulted in rejection of applications of the petitioner, as well as the 4^th respondent. Since both universities are institutes of eminence, ignoring the requirement of an equivalency certificate for both the petitioner, as well as the 4^th respondent cannot be regarded as a sufficient reason to interfere with the selection of the 4^th respondent. The total absence of pleadings in the writ petition in that regard also weighs with this court in coming to this conclusion.

¶137

Taking note of the circumstances mentioned above, this Court is of the view that the discretionary jurisdiction to interfere in

¶138

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶139

¶140

exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226, is not required to be invoked in the instant case to upset the conclusion of the Selection Committee. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the selection of the 4^th respondent, for the post of Associate Professor

¶141

under the 3^rd respondent.

¶142

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶143

Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

¶144

RKM

¶145

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

¶146

¶147

APPENDIX

¶148

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶149

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DOCTOR PHILOSOPHY ISSUED BY THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION, DT.16/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY FOR FACULTY RECRUITMENT TO THE POSTS OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS/SCHOOLS OF THE UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT.28/02/2015 ISSUED BY THE CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES AWARDING THE PETITIONER THE POST DOCTORAL RESEARCH AWARD IN ECONOMICS.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE PETITIONER, AS ON THE LAST DATE OF SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION, IN THE RESEARCH JOURNALS APPROVED BY THE U.G.C. AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS, ALONG WITH THE PUBLICATION OF HIS BOOK AND CHAPTERS IN OTHER BOOKS.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST DT.03/07/2018 FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS INCLUDING THE DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES PUBLISHED BY THE M.G. UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.03/07/2018 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT AFFORDING APPOINTMENT AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENCES.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES DESCRIBING THE EQUIVALENCY - ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATES DOWNLOADED FROM HE WEBSITE OF THE M.G.UNIVERSITY.

Dr. Prabhakaran Nair V.R v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr. Prabhakaran Nair V.R v. Mahatma Gandhi University

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

Jency T George, Vs the Branch Manager

Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Chami Vs State of Kerala

Sikal.S.K. Vs the Authorised Officer

Veeran Kutty K Vs Sundaram Home Finance Ltd.

M.T.Phalgunan Vs the District Collector