Dismissed

Dr. Ancy Bay.P.C v. University of Calicut

Kerala HC1 Mar 2024WP(C)/16175/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the selection of an Assistant Professor, the Court examined eligibility conditions regarding research publications and conference presentations for Ph.D exemption from NET. Relying on verified university certificates and dismissed plagiarism allegations as closed, the Court rejected the petition, emphasizing judicial restraint in academic selections absent illegality

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr. Ancy Bay.P.C Vs University of Calicut — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 16175 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR. ANCY BAY.P.C AGED 39 YEARS D/O.SHRI.P.C.NEELAKANDAN, ANCY NIVAS (HOUSE), CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-673635.

¶8

BY ADVS. LINDONS C.DAVIS E.U.DHANYA DHANESH V.MADHAVAN Haridas V N SAIFUDEEN T.S(K/000746/2018) THASNIEEM BADARUDEEN(K/001352/2022)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS RESTRAR, THENHIPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-673635.

¶11

2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673635.

¶12

3 THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673635.

¶13

4 DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, DIRECTORATE OF RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673635.

¶14

5 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISISON,

¶15

-2-

¶16

WP(C) No.16175 of 2021

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110002.

¶18

6 SREEKALA.M, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR(COMPARATIVE LITERATURE), DEPARTMENT OF RUSSIAN AN DCOMPARATIVE LITERATURE, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-673635.

¶19

7 DR.SREEDEVI.P, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF FILM STUDIES, THUNCHATH EZHUTHACHAN MALAYALAM UNIVERSITY, VAKKAD, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-676502.

¶20

BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC K.JAJU BABU (SR.) BRIJESH MOHAN SACHIN RAMESH

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2024, THE COURT ON 01.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

-3-

¶23

WP(C) No.16175 of 2021

¶24

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

¶25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶26

W(C)No.16175 of 2021

¶27

¶28

Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2024

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner, an applicant to the selection to the post of Assistant Professor in Comparative Literature at the Department of Russian and Comparative Literature at Calicut University, has filed this writ petition contending that the sixth respondent, the selectee, did not have the eligibility fixed in Ext.P1 notification. The relevant qualifications in Ext.P1 are as follows:-

¶31

“i) A master's degree with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever the grading system is followed) in a concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University.

¶32

ii) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC or CSIR, or a similar test accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET or who are or have been awarded a Ph.D Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum standards and Procedure for award of Mphil/Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009 or 2016 and their amendments from time to time as the case may be exempted from NET/SLET/SET:

¶33

Provided, the candidates registered for the Ph.D programme prior to July 11, 2009, shall be governed by the provisions of the then

¶34

-4-

¶35

WP(C) No.16175 of 2021

¶36

existing Ordinances/ Bye-laws/Regulations of the Institutions awarding the degree and such Ph.D candidates shall be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions:-

¶37

a) The Ph.D degree of the candidate has been awarded in a regular mode:

¶38

b) The Ph.D thesis has been evaluated by at least two external examiners:

¶39

c) An open Ph.D viva voce of the candidate has been conducted;

¶40

d) The candidate has published two research papers from his/her Ph.D work, out of which at least one is in a referred journal;

¶41

(e) The candidate has presented at least two papers based on his/her Ph.D work in conferences/seminars sponsored/funded/supported by the UGC/ICSSR/CSIR or any similar agency.

¶42

The fulfillment of these conditions is to be certified by the Registrar or the Dean (Academic Affairs of the University concerned.”

¶43

The petitioner submits that the sixth respondent did not have NET qualifications and that in cases where a person did not have NET, the qualifications mentioned at (d) and (e) of the notification are mandatory. The petitioner asserts that the sixth respondent does not comply with conditions (d) and (e) in Ext.P1 notification, as the sixth respondent has not published two research papers from her Ph.D work, out of which at least one must be in a referred journal. Likewise, the contention that the sixth respondent has also not presented two research papers based on a

¶44

-5-

¶45

WP(C) No.16175 of 2021

¶46

Ph.D work in conferences seminars sponsored/funded/supported by the UGC/ICSSR/CSIR or any other similar agency. It is also stated that the sixth respondent was awarded Ph.D as per the certificate dated 4.10.2012, and as of that date, the sixth respondent has not met the said conditions. The research papers for seminars attended after the awarding of Ph.D are not relevant. Therefore, the petitioner contends that even if the sixth respondent had Ph.D in the subject by registering for the Ph.D programme before 11.07.2009, she is not eligible for exemption from the NET for the reason that she had not fulfilled the conditions (d) and (e) mentioned while taking her Ph.D.

¶47

Though the petitioner had arrayed, the seventh respondent pleading lack of eligibility, since the seventh respondent had already got an appointment elsewhere and is not interested in the post in question, the petitioner is not claiming any relief against the seventh respondent. Apart from this, the petitioner also raised an allegation against the sixth respondent that in the research papers of the sixth respondent, there was plagiarism and an enquiry was ordered, and the committee that looked into the said allegation found merit in the allegation, as is seen from Ext.P5 and the same was referred before the Syndicate which later on dropped the same. It is alleged that the Syndicate committee dropped the charges against the sixth respondent only out of the influence that the sixth respondent had in the University.

¶48

-6-

¶49

WP(C) No.16175 of 2021

¶50

The sixth respondent has filed a counter in the above case. The sixth respondent denied all the charges against the petitioner and submitted that she took M A Degree in Comparative Literature from the first respondent University in January 2003 with first rank. She also secured an M.Phil Degree in Comparative Literature in June 2005 from the first respondent with an A Grade. She also obtained a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature awarded by the first respondent University on 4.12.2012. These are evident from Exts.R6(a) to R6(d). It is also pointed out that she has five years of teaching experience as a Guest Lecturer in the Department of Russian and Comparative Literature at the first respondent University. The petitioner claims that she is fully qualified and that she has been given a certificate in that regard, as stipulated in the notification, from the university. The contention that she does not have NET qualification is not relevant as a person awarded with the Ph.D. degree in accordance with the UGC Regulations 2009 or 2016, or their amendments from time to time as the case may be, are excepted from NET/SLET/SET. Since she had a Ph.D. qualification and an index mark of 85.33 out of 100, she was included in the rank list based on her performance in the interview. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has also participated in the selection process and, therefore, is estopped from challenging the selection process after having failed in the same. The allegation of plagiarism is also denied. The sixth respondent points out that she had filed WP(C)No.33313/2016, which was closed after recording the submission of the University that the Syndicate

¶51

-7-

¶52

WP(C) No.16175 of 2021

¶53

has decided not to proceed further. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has not impleaded all the persons in the rank list, and hence, the writ petition is bad for the non-joinder of necessary parties.

¶54

A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3; namely, the University stating that the sixth respondent is qualified and that conditions (d) and (e) in Ext.P1 notification were verified. It is only after the same that the Registrar issued the certificate as required in Ext.P1 itself. It was only after assessing the eligibility of the participants that they were included in the ranked list. The University also denies the allegation of plagiarism. The University has also produced the certificate, which was issued at the request of the sixth respondent in terms of the regulations for claiming exemption from the NET to apply for the post of Assistant Professor as she had registered for the Ph.D. programme before July 11, 2009, and had obtained Ph.D in terms of the UGC Regulations. The University, after verification of the records, issued a certificate on 17.01.2020, which is marked as Ext.R1(a). The University asserts that the candidate had published two research papers in a referred journal from out of her Ph.D. work and that she had also participated, as is seen from the certificates produced by the sixth respondent.

¶55

Heard Sri. Lindons C. Davis, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned senior counsel Sri.Jaju Babu, instructed by Sri.Brijesh Mohan and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel for Calicut University.

¶56

-8-

¶57

WP(C) No.16175 of 2021

¶58

The essential qualifications as extracted above and which arise for consideration in this case are qualifications marked as (d) and (e) in Ext.P1. The sixth respondent has produced Ext.R6(i), which shows that she had presented a research paper in seminars sponsored by UGC in February 2012. The petitioner has also produced Ext.R6(j) for having presented the paper during the International seminar organized at the first respondent University in March 2019. The sixth respondent had also presented a research paper at the International Conference conducted by the Centre of Russian Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, which is seen from Ext.R6(k). In view of the above exhibits, it is clear that the petitioner satisfied the conditions in Ext.P1 notification, which is also in tune with the UGC Regulations in relation to the exemption from NET. It is also seen that for claiming exemption from the NET, as stated above, was issued by the University. In the absence of any challenge to the said certificate which was issued after verification, the contention of the petitioner that the sixth respondent is not qualified cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted that there are no malafides raised against the selection committee nor are the selection committee members included in their individual capacity. The certificate issued by the University is in order. The qualifications claimed by the sixth respondent are in tune with the stipulations in Ext.P1 notification. Under such circumstances, nothing on record suggests that the sixth respondent was not eligible to participate in the selection process. The contention of the petitioner based on plagiarism in research

¶59

-9-

¶60

WP(C) No.16175 of 2021

¶61

work has also attained finality by the Syndicate dropping the further proceedings, which is recorded in the writ petition filed by the sixth respondent mentioned above

¶62

It is trite that it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to the experts, who are more familiar with problems they face than the courts generally can be. Due regard should be paid to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the selection committee, and in the absence of any illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedures vitiating the selection or proved malafides affecting the selection, the courts will not sit in appeal over the selection so made or venture into assessing the comparative merits of the candidates.

¶63

Under such circumstances, no reliefs are liable to be granted to the petitioner on the grounds raised in the writ petition. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

¶66

dlk/27.2.2024

¶67

-10-

¶68

WP(C) No.16175 of 2021

¶69

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16175/2021

¶70

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶71

EXHIBIT P1	A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	A COPY OF THE CURRICULUM VITA OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3	A COPY OF THE SHORT LIST DATED 06.10.2020 TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN COMPARATIVE LITERATURE.
EXHIBIT P4	A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RANKED LIST DATED 4.2.2021 TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN COMPARATIVE LITERATURE.
EXHIBIT P5	A COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE DATED 05.04.2016.
EXHIBIT P5(A)	A TYPED LEGIBLE COPY OF THE EXHIBIT.P5.
EXHIBIT P6	A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.04.2017 IN W.P(C)NO.33313/2016.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHANCELLOR
EXHIBIT P8	A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION DATED 09.02.2021
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.03.2021 OF UGC.
EXHIBIT P10	A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.03.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR.
EXHIBIT P11	A COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY POLICY ON PREVENTION

¶72

-11-

¶73

WP(C) No.16175 of 2021

¶74

	OF PLAGIARIS	M DATED 21.04.2015	.
EXHIBIT	P12 A TRUE COPY DATED 16.02.	OF THE APPLICATI 2021.	ON AS PER RTI ACT
EXHIBIT	P13 A COPY OF TH ACT FROM THE	E REPLY DATED 12. CALICUT UNIVERSIT	03.2021 AS PER RTI Y.
EXHIBIT	P14 A COPY OF INFORMATION	THE APPLICATION ACT DATED 23/1/202	AS PER RIGHT TO 2
EXHIBIT	P15 A COPY OF 2/2020/ADMN PETITIONER	THE REPLY NO. DATED 22/2/2022	28298/AD-REC-ASST- RECEIVED BY THE
EXHIBIT	P16 A COPY OF C1/2021/ADMN PETITIONER	THE FURTHER REPL DATED 22/2/2022	Y NO.35949/GA-11- RECEIVED BY THE

¶75

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

¶76

EXHIBIT R6(A) COPY ARTS THE	OF THE DEGREE AAWARDED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.	CERTIFICATE IN MASTER OF UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO
EXHIBIT R6(B) COPY AWAR RESP	OF THE RANK CERT DED BY THE UNIVER ONDENT.	IFICATE IN MASTER OF ARTS SITY OF CALICUT TO THE 6TH
EXHIBIT R6(C) COPY PHIL TO T	OF THE DEGREE OSOPHY AWARDED BY HE 6TH RESPONDENT.	CERTIFICATE IN MASTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
EXHIBIT R6(D) COPY AWAR 6TH	OF THE CERTIFICA DED BY THE UNIVE RESPONDENT ON 04/1	TE IN DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPY RSITY OF CALICUTY TO THE 0/2012
EXHIBIT R6(E) TRUE 2020 RECR	COPY OF THE INT ISSUED TO THE UITMENT SECTION.	ERVIEW MEMO DATED 23-11- 6TH RESPONDENT BY THE

¶77

-12-

¶78

WP(C) No.16175 of 2021

¶79

EXHIBIT R6(F)	TRUE DATED THE 6	COPY 30-1/ TH RES	OF THE MEMO VIDE NO.GAIIC1/GEN/2020 2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO PONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(G)	TRUE WPC.N	COPY O.3331	OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-04-2017 IN 3/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT R6(H)	TRUE ENTRU RESPO 2005	COPY STED NDENT	OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE BY THE SYNDICATE RECEIVED BY THE 6TH UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT,
EXHIBIT R6(I)	TRUE BY T	COPY HE DEP	OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED NIL ISSUED ARTMENT OF ENGLISH EMEA COLLEGE OF
	ARTS RESPO	AND NDENT	SCIENCE, KONDOTTY TO THE 6TH
EXHIBIT R6(J)	TRUE	COPY	OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 7.3.2019
	ISSUE DEPAR COMPA UNIVE	D BY TMENT, RATIVE RSITY	THE CONVENOR AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF RUSSIAN AND LITERATURE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R6(K)	TRUE DATED CENTR UNIVE	COPY NIL E OF RSITY	OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION ISSUED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT BY THE RUSSIAN STUDIES, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
EXHIBIT R1(A)	TRUE UNIVE	COPY RSITY	OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ON 17.01.2020

Dr. Ancy Bay.P.C v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr. Ancy Bay.P.C v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Valsala P.V. Vs the Kerala Agricultural University

Harishkumar.R.K, Vs State of Kerala.

Beena C Thambi Vs State of Kerala

Nazeera N Vs State of Kerala

Nisha Chandran C Vs State of Kerala

Padmaja.N, Vs State of Kerala