Dismissed¶97

Dr. Viswanath C. Narayanan v. University of Calicut

Kerala HC19 Mar 2025WP(C)/2559/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court 2025 writ petition dismissed; University of Calicut recruitment to the post of Professor in Mathematics; UGC Regulations 2018, Regulation 4.1(III)(A)(ii); interpretation of “and / or” in the essential qualification clause; mandatory requirement of evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidates; ten years' teaching experience versus research experience; Ext.P1 notification; Ext.P10 rejection order upheld; eligibility of serving Professor applicant; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

The University has practically adopted the qualification prescribed by the UGC in prescribing the eligibility for the post of Professor. ¶80

Dr. Viswanath C. Narayanan Vs University of Calicut — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶97

Issue for consideration

Whether the words “and / or” in the essential qualification clause (Clause 1 (A)(ii) of Ext.P1, mirroring Regulation 4.1(III)(A)(ii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018) should be construed as “or”, so that a minimum of ten years' teaching experience alone qualifies a candidate for the post of Professor without evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidates. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

The University has practically adopted the qualification prescribed by the UGC in prescribing the eligibility for the post of Professor.

¶80

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's contention that the words “and / or” in the essential qualification clause should be read as “or” cannot be accepted; apart from teaching experience, experience in guiding research scholars is important for the duties of a Professor, which is why the UGC and the respondents insisted on evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidates.

¶86

Key takeaways

Experience in successfully guiding doctoral candidates is a distinct requirement unconnected with teaching experience or research experience; whether a candidate relies on teaching experience or on research experience, he must have minimum experience in guiding doctoral candidates for the post of Professor.ratio¶91
The essential qualifications for appointment to the post of Professor prescribed in Exts.P1 and P11 insist on successful guidance of doctoral candidates, and this applies to both categories — candidates having teaching experience and candidates having research experience.ratio¶92

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C)No.2559 of 2024, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (N. NAGARESH JUDGE), decided 19.03.2025 — Dr. Viswanath C. Narayanan, Professor, Department of Mathematics, Government Engineering College, Thrissur, applied under the University of Calicut's Ext.P1 notification (dated 31/12/2019) for the post of Professor in Mathematics, claiming eligibility under Clause 1 (A)(ii) / Clause 4.1 (III) A (ii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018 on the strength of over ten years' teaching experience. The interview held on 18.01.2022 ranked no candidates; after W.P.(C) No.27065 of 2023 (Ext.P9 judgment dated 10.10.2023) directed consideration of his representation, the Deputy Registrar rejected it by Ext.P10 (Order No. 152616/ADREC-ASST-2/2021/ADMN., dated 22.12.2023) for want of the mandatory UGC qualification of “evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidate”. HELD: (i) the University has practically adopted the UGC-prescribed qualifications; (ii) the words “and / or” in the eligibility clause cannot be read as “or” — apart from teaching experience, experience in guiding research scholars is important to the duties of a Professor; (iii) successful guidance of doctoral candidates is a distinct requirement applicable both to candidates with teaching experience and to those with research experience; (iv) the petitioner admittedly lacked such evidence, and the respondents were justified in not considering his candidature. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

2025:KER:23790

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶6

WP(C) NO. 2559 OF 2024

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

DR. VISWANATH C. NARAYANAN AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. C.K. NARAYANANAN, CHUTHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CORA 23, PRATHIBHA ROAD, CHIYYARAM P.O., THRISSUR – 680026 WORKING AS PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680009.

¶9

BY ADVS. ELIZEBATH GEORGE M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR RAJU G.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THENJIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 673635.

¶12

W.P.(C)No.2559 of 2024

¶13

:2:

¶14

2025:KER:23790

¶15

2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THENJIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 673635.

¶16

BY ADV.SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C)No.2559 of 2024

:3:

2025:KER:23790

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2025

¶24

The petitioner, who is now working as Professor in the Department of Mathematics, Government Engineering College, Thrissur, has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside Ext.P10 and to direct the respondents to consider the claim and interview the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner for the post of Professor in Mathematics as per Clause 4.1 (III) A (ii) of UGC Regulations, 2018 and Ext.P1 notification, without delay.

¶25

The petitioner states that the respondents have invited application for selection and appointment to the post of

¶26

W.P.(C)No.2559 of 2024

¶27

:4:

¶28

2025:KER:23790

¶29

Professors in various Departments in the University as per Ext.P1 notification. As the petitioner is qualified for the post of Professor in Mathematics, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application.

¶30

The petitioner learnt that the interview for the post of Professor in Mathematics was held on 18.01.2022 and no candidates are ranked. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is fully qualified as per UGC Regulations, 2018 and as per Ext.P1 notification. He is entitled to be called for the interview and to get his candidature considered for appointment to the post of Professor in Mathematics.

¶31

The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation to the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.27065 of 2023. This Court directed the matter to be considered, as per Ext.P9 judgment. The respondents, however, have rejected the representation of the petitioner as per Ext.P10 order. In Ext.P10

¶32

W.P.(C)No.2559 of 2024

¶33

:5:

¶34

2025:KER:23790

¶35

order, the Deputy Registrar has stated that the petitioner's application for appointment to the post of Professor in the Department of Mathematics stands rejected for want of the mandatory qualifications as stipulated by the UGC.

¶36

Counsel for the petitioner relied on Ext.P1 notification

¶37

and stated that the petitioner has all the requisite qualifications prescribed in Ext.P1. Ext.P1 states that a minimum of ten years of teaching experience in University / College as Assistant Professor / Associate Professor / Professor and / or research experience at equivalent level at the University / National Level Institutions with evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidate.

¶38

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has more than ten years teaching experience as is evident from Ext.P2 and for persons having more than ten years teaching experience, research experience equivalent level need

¶39

W.P.(C)No.2559 of 2024

¶40

:6:

¶41

2025:KER:23790

¶42

not be insisted. The words “and / or” contained in Clause 1 (A)(ii) is to be treated as “or” only and any other meaning will defeat the very purpose of the rules and will create an awkward situation.

¶43

The eligibility conditions as prescribed in Ext.P1 is in tune with Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education Regulations, 2018 of the UGC. As the petitioner satisfies the eligibility conditions and essential qualifications as prescribed in Ext.P1, the petitioner's candidature is liable to be considered for selection and appointment to the post of Professor, urged the Counsel for the petitioner.

¶44

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, the Standing Counsel submitted that “evidence of

¶45

W.P.(C)No.2559 of 2024 :7:

¶46

2025:KER:23790

¶47

having successfully guided doctoral candidate” is one of the mandatory qualifications for the post. The petitioner cannot be considered to have required qualification as per notification as there is no evidence of successfully guiding doctoral candidates. In the selection process, only one candidate was found to have the requisite qualifications. That candidate was interviewed by the Selection Committee. The single candidate could not score the minimum marks required as per the interview criteria. Therefore, the single candidate was not ranked.

¶48

On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the words “and / or” in the Clause is not meant for research experience only. A candidate should possess either teaching experience of ten years or research experience of ten years at an equivalent level or a total of ten years of experience in teaching and research combined together. But, even though the

¶49

W.P.(C)No.2559 of 2024

¶50

:8:

¶51

2025:KER:23790

¶52

petitioner is having research experience and teaching experience, still he should have the further qualification of successfully guiding doctoral candidates.

¶53

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

¶54

The petitioner responded to Ext.P1 notification and applied for selection to the post of Professor in Mathematics. Ext.P2 is the copy of application submitted by the petitioner. Ext.P2 would indicate that the petitioner has three years and zero months and 19 days of teaching experience in Government Engineering College, Sreekrishnapuram and 12 years, 7 months and 16 days teaching experience in Government Engineering College, Thrissur.

¶55

Ext.P1 notification gives essential qualifications for candidates. The essential qualifications read as follows:-

¶56

W.P.(C)No.2559 of 2024

¶57

:9:

¶58

2025:KER:23790

¶59

Essential qualifications :

¶60

1) For the Disciplines of Arts, Commerce, Humanities, Social Sciences, Sciences, Languages, Library Science and Journalism & Mass Communication.

¶61

Eligibility (A or B) A. i) An eminent scholar having a Ph.D Degree in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with, a minimum of 10 research publications in the peer reviewed or UGC listed journals and a total research score of 120 as per the criteria given in Appendix II, Table 2 of UGC Regulations, 2018.

¶62

ii) A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in University/College as Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Professor and/or research experience at equivalent level at the University/National Level Institutions with evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidate.

¶63

¶64

¶65

An outstanding professional, having a Ph.D.Degree in the relevant/allied/applied disciplines, from any academic institutions (not included in A above) / industry, who has made significant contribution to the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, supported by documentary evidence provided he/she has ten years' experience. (emphasis supplied)

¶66

W.P.(C)No.2559 of 2024

¶67

:10:

¶68

2025:KER:23790

¶69

Ext.P11 is the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in the Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018. Regulation 4.1(III) of the Regulations, 2018 reads as follows:

¶70

III. Professor: Eligibility (A or B): A.

¶71

i) An eminent scholar having a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with, a minimum of 10 research publications in the peerreviewed or UGC-listed journals and a total research score of 120 as per the criteria given in Appendix II, Table 2.

¶72

ii) A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in University/College as Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Professor, and/or research experience at equivalent level at the University/National Level Institutions with evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidate.

¶73

¶74

B. An outstanding professional, having a Ph.D.Degree in the relevant/allied/applied disciplines, from any academic institutions (not included in A above) / industry, who has made significant contribution to the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, supported by

¶75

W.P.(C)No.2559 of 2024

¶76

:11:

¶77

2025:KER:23790

¶78

documentary evidence provided he/she ten years' experience.

¶79

14. Regulation 4.1 (III) would show that the University

¶80

has practically adopted the qualification prescribed by the UGC. The contention of the petitioner is that a candidate need either a minimum of ten years of teaching experience in University / College as an Assistant Professor / Associate Professor / Professor and / or research experience at equivalent level at the University / National Level Institutions with evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidate.

¶81

According to the petitioner, the term “and / or” appearing above, is evidently a mistake and the term should be treated to mean as “or”, because any other meaning attributed to the qualification part would result in an anomaly. In other words, the argument of the petitioner is that if persons having minimum ten years of teaching experience in University /

¶82

W.P.(C)No.2559 of 2024

¶83

:12:

¶84

2025:KER:23790

¶85

College as Assistant Professor / Associate Professor / Professor, then such candidates are entitled to apply for the post even if the candidates do not have research experience at an equivalent level at the Universities / National Level Institutions with evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidates.

¶86

Going through Exts.P1 and P11, I find that the proposition advanced by the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is for the reason that the rationale behind prescribing such qualifications is that, the post being of a Professor in the University, experience in research guidance cannot alone be taken as a desirable qualification. Apart from teaching experience, experience in guiding research scholars is important in the matter of discharge the duties of a Professor. It is for that reason that the UGC, as well as the respondents, insisted that for appointment as a Professor, there should be

¶87

W.P.(C)No.2559 of 2024

¶88

:13:

¶89

2025:KER:23790

¶90

evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidates.

¶91

It is further to be noted that the experience in successfully guiding doctoral candidates is a distinct requirement unconnected with the experience in teaching or experience in research. Either way, whether a candidate is experienced in teaching or whether a candidate is experienced in research, such candidates should have a minimum experience in guiding doctoral candidates, the post held being that of a Professor.

¶92

In the circumstances, I find that the essential qualifications for appointment to the post of Professor prescribed in Exts.P1 and P11 should be taken as one insisting for successfully guiding doctoral candidates, which is applicable to both categories, namely, candidates having teaching experience and candidates having research experience. Admittedly, the petitioner does not have evidence of having

¶93

W.P.(C)No.2559 of 2024 :14:

¶94

2025:KER:23790

¶95

successfully guiding doctoral candidates. Therefore, the respondents were justified in not considering the candidature of

¶96

the petitioner.

¶97

The writ petition fails and it is therefore dismissed.

¶98

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶99

ams

¶100

W.P.(C)No.2559 of 2024

¶101

:15:

¶102

2025:KER:23790

¶103

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2559/2024

¶104

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶105

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED NOTIFICATION INVITING APPLICATION TO APPOINTMENTS TO PERMANENT POST OF PROFESSORS DATED 31/12/2019 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THAT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THAT RANK LIST TO THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR/PROFESSORS IN VARIOUS TEACHING DEPARTMENTS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 15-03-22 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RTI ACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23-06-23

¶106

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO. 152616/ADREC-ASST-2/2021/ADMN GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER UNDER RTI ACT DATED 30-06-23

¶107

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXT.P5 REPLY DATED 11-07-23

¶108

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RS/1029/2023/28 REJECTING THE APPEAL DATED 07-08-23

¶109

:16:

¶110

W.P.(C)No.2559 of 2024

¶111

2025:KER:23790

¶112

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR DATED NIL Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 27065/2023 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 10.10.2023 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THAT ORDER NO. 152616/ADREC-ASST-2/2021/ADMN. DATED 22.12.2023 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF UGC REGULATION PUBLISHED BY UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION DATED 18.7.2018

¶113

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶114

EXHIBIT R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

Dr. Viswanath C. Narayanan v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Viswanath C. Narayanan v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Shiny. V.N. Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Sonia P G Vs State of Kerala

Augustina Stephy Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Krishnamani Vs Chamiyar, (Died) Lrs Recorded

V.V. Malathy Vs State of Kerala

V. v Sudhakaran Vs State of Kerala