Dr.Mary Senterla P.S vs M.G.University
2021 Latest Caselaw 15888 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
         MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017
PETITIONER/S:
           DR.MARY SENTERLA P.S.
           AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.P.V.JOSEPH, PERIKILAKKATTU HOUSE,
           KOZHUVANAL P.O.,PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686575

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
             SRI.T.K.NAVAS
             SMT.NIGI GEORGE
             SMT.P.V.PARVATHI
             SMT.REENA THOMAS


RESPONDENT/S:
     1     M.G.UNIVERSITY
           PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686001,REPRESENTED BY ITS
           REGISTRAR

     2       VICE CHANCELLOR
             M.G.UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686001

     3       DIRECTOR
             SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS &
             POLITICS,M.G.UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-
             686001

     4       SELECTION COMMITTEE
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL
             RELATIONS & POLITICS,M.G.UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSINI HILLS,
             KOTTAYAM-686001

             BY ADV SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY


OTHER PRESENT:

             SC. ASOK M CHERIAN
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017
                                    2



                           JUDGMENT

The facts in brief are that the first respondent, Mahatma

Gandhi University, Kottayam vide notification dated 30.4.2010,

Ext.P1 notified the petitioner to be a member of the Post

Graduate Board of Studies in the Department of Political

Science. The petitioner is also recognized Research Guide of

the first respondent University as per order dated 30.5.2009,

Ext.P2 and member of several Interview Board as subject

Expert, Ext.P2(a). She had been conferred Doctorate in

International Relations as per the certificate 7.3.1995, Ext.P3

and a first class holder in M.A Politics, Ext.P4.

2. Pursuant to the notification dated 18.8.2009 caused

by the first respondent University notifying the post of Professor

in the Department of School of International Relations &

Politics, petitioner submitted an application for the said post

which has been rejected by the Respondents on the ground that

the required number of publications as per the UGC norms was

not held by the petitioner. The aforementioned rejection was WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017

challenged by the petitioner vide W.P.(C) No.5980/2010 which

was opposed by the respondents on the ground that it was not

the number of publications that is warranted but the quality of

the publications. This Court vide judgment dated 11.11.2011

repelled the contentions.

3. On 28.7.2010, respondents invited another application

for the post of Professor in the said Department from members

of the Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian Community, Ext.P7.

Petitioner, having ten years of experience in Post Graduate

teaching and experience in Research in the University including

experience of guiding research at doctoral level, satisfied the

aforementioned qualifications, applied for the same which has

also been rejected by the first respondent , on the premise that

she did not have the minimum of ten (10)publications as Books

and for Research/Policy papers vide Ext.P11 dated 13.1.2012.

The aforementioned selection was challenged in W.P.(C)

No.4248/2012. However, during the pendency of the writ

petition, University conducted a re-screening of the application

and again rejected. Ultimately the writ petition was heard and WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017

allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 12.8.2015, Ext.P14.

As per the judgment, screening committee was constituted by

the first respondent with the Vice Chancellor as the Chairman

and considered the application of the petitioner in accordance

with Ext.P7 notification. Petitioner was informed that the

matter was placed before the Syndicate. However, in the

meantime, received a communication dated 6.9.2016 to appear

before an interview to be conducted on 26.9.2016, Ext.P16. But

interview was postponed as per the communication Ext.P17. In

that circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to file

contempt case. Accordingly, the date of interview was

rescheduled and the petitioner appeared before the selection

committee. No communication regarding application/interview

was received, resulted in seeking information under RTI.

4. On going through the minutes of the Selection

Committee Ext.P21, it was found that the petitioner's

candidature was rejected on the ground that she did not fulfill

the qualifications prescribed by UGC prior to 2010 Regulations.

The decision of the respondents is wholly atrocious, for, the WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017

respondents have taken the guiding research and teaching as

separate and not together, which is not in consonance with the

decision of the Supreme Court in B.C Mylarappa @ Dr.

Chikkamylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah and Ors.

[(2008) 14 SCC 306]. In the aforementioned judgment,

identical conditions were notified in the notification and the

respondents had considered the teaching experience separately

than that of the guiding research which was negated by

Supreme Court, as it was to be considered compositely. Even

in the aforementioned cited judgment, the Chairman of the

Department on scrutiny and verification found the petitioner to

be eligible by fulfilling all conditions. In this case also,

Screening Committee held on 16.12.2015 after scrutiny of the

application was resolved to shortlist her for selection and

interview to be conducted by a Committee duly constituted

under the statutes.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the University

supported the impugned decision on the premise that the

petitioner was the only candidate and the first Ph.D scholar WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017

under the guide-ship of the petitioner, was registered only on a

date well after the date of submission of the application, which

clearly deciphered that the petitioner did not have prescribed

qualification on the date of the submission of the application.

The selection committee did not recommend appointment of the

petitioner of having not satisfied the standard of qualifications

required for appointment as Professor. She had neither the

experience of guiding research at Doctoral level nor had

published works of high quality.

6. The aforementioned contentions were repelled by the

learned counsel for the petitioner referring to series of

documents Exts.P8, P8(a), P8(b) and P9 ie., the Articles

published in Stars (International Journal on Humanities and

Social Sciences) in June 2005 as well as in December 2005.

Another Article in 'The Pharmaceutical patents in India:

Challenges and Opportunities' was published in another reputed

journal ie., Holistic Thought in June 2010, Ext.P9. Petitioner

attended various Seminars both at the International and

National level and presentations in various Seminars and WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017

Refresher courses was made. Copy of the application submitted

by the petitioner also evidencing her Profile, Ext.P10.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

appraised the paper book. The qualification prescribed for the

aforementioned post was as per the UGC guidelines same reads

thus:

1.3.1 Professor

An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged in research, with 10 years of experience in postgraduate teaching, and/or experience in research at the University/National Level institutions, including experience of guiding research at doctoral level. OR An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge.

The reasoning assigned by the respondents in rejecting her

candidature is extracted herein below:

The Selection Committee for the post of Professor in the School of International Relations and Politics (Reserved for Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian) has examined the application of Dr. Mary Senterla. P.S. The Committee made a thorough examination of all the documents in this regard placed before it. It also interviewed the candidate and clarified all aspects related to claims in the application form, her qualifications, research experience and publications.

The Committee found that she had no evidence of guiding research at the doctoral level at the time of submission of application. Also she could not produce hard copies of the publications as on date of application that she had claimed in her application.

WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017

The Committee took into consideration the directions of the Honourable High Court of Kerala that the selection be done on the basis of the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 4248 of 2012 (E).

On the basis of the above mentioned points the Committee unanimously found that she did not fulfill the qualifications prescribed by the UGC prior to 2010 Regulations and the Mahatma Gandhi University notification as on the date of application. Thus the Committee did not recommend the candidate for the post of Professor in the School of International Relations and Politics as per the UGC and University notification referred above.

On perusal of the reasoning assigned in Ext.P21, the

committee found that the petitioner did not have the evidence

of guiding research at the doctoral level at the time of

submission of application. Nor she could produce hard copies

of the publications. The qualification as enumerated above, do

not segregate 10 years experience for consideration of the

candidature by treating the guiding research as a separate

qualification. It is a composite one. Paragraph 13 of the

judgment in B.C Mylarappa cited (supra), noticed arguments

of the affected candidate in Para 19 and findings in Para 27 and

28 are extracted herein below:

13. The University thereafter issued a notification on 30th of September, 2002, inviting various persons to apply for the post of Professor, Reader and Lecturer in the University. In the said notification, the University invited candidates for the post of Professors in which the following qualifications were WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017

required :-

"An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged in Research with :

10 years of experience of Post-Graduate teaching, and/or experience in research at the University/National Level Institutions (including experience of guiding research at Doctoral Level).

Or An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge."

19.xxx Secondly it was argued by Mr.Rama Jois, learned senior counsel for the appellant that the High Court also erred in allowing the writ petition of the respondents by holding that having regard to the wording of the prescription both the periods of experience in teaching as Lecturer for a period of 8 years 7 months and 2 days and experience as Research Assistant for a period of 5 years 5 months and 10 days ought to have been taken into account and after taking into account the aforesaid period, the High Court ought to have held that the appellant was eligible for being selected as a Professor in the Sociology Department of the University and by not doing so, the High Court erred in setting aside the appointment of the appellant.

27. Before we conclude, at the risk of repetition, we may reiterate that the Chairman, Department of Sociology, University of Bangalore submitted his scrutiny and verification report in which it was stated as under: "On my scrutiny, I am satisfied that the candidate under reference fulfils all the requirements as laid down in the University Notification under reference and the candidate may be invited for the interview. If the candidate is not eligible, please furnish the details."

28. A reading of the scrutiny report which was extracted by the learned Single Judge in his order would clearly show that the Chairman found only four persons eligible for the post and invited the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and one more candidate for interview. After being satisfied WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017

and after verifying the report of the eligibility and the requirements for appointment to the post of Professor in the Sociology Department of the University, the scrutiny and verification report was filed by the Chairman and on the basis of which the appellant was selected and appointed in the post of Professor in the University. That being the position and in view of our discussions made herein above, we are of the view that the Division Bench as well as the learned single judge ought not to have exercised the writ jurisdiction and interfered with the selection of the expert committee of the University for the reasons made in the order and particularly when the selection of the appellant was not challenged on the ground of mala fides.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner do not have 10 years

of experience but the respondents for the sake of repetition

have taken the guided research as Separate. Petitioner has

done UGC sponsored minor project on 'the impact of Epidemics

on the Economy of Kerala State' as evidenced by Ext.P26. She

was appointed by the University as a research guide in view of

series of Ext.P8; Articles of the petitioner were published in

STARS journal. She had minimum three publications including

a book at the time of submission of the application ie., Ext.P8,

P8(a), P8(b) and P9. Thus the decision of the respondent

Ext.P21 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and not sustainable and

hereby set aside. Petitioner fulfills the qualification and

therefore required to be appointed on the said post. Writ WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017

petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to appoint the

petitioner on the said post from the date of her interview and

pay all the salary and arrears which the petitioner is entitled to.

The aforementioned directions are issued as this Court while

admitting the writ petition vide order dated 7.7.2017 observed

that the appointments, if any with respect to Sl.No.2 in Ext.P21

shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.

Sd/-

sab                                             AMIT RAWAL

                                                   JUDGE
 WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017


                      APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21429/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1              COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF NOTIFICATION
                        NO.2954/2010/1/ELEN. DATED 30.04.2010

EXHIBIT P2              COPY OF ORDER NO.2365/C./VI/1/RG/2009/ACAD. DATED
                        30.05.2009

EXHIBIT P2(A)           COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 23.10.2008 ISSUED BY
                        ST.DOMINIC'S COLLEGE, KANJIRAPPILLY

EXHIBIT P3              COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 07.03.1995 EVIDENCING

THE AWARD OF PH.D IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 19.2.1988 PLACING THE PETITIONER IN FIRST CLASS IN M.A.POLITICS

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 15.01.2010 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 28.07.2010

EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF BOOK TITLED "INDO SOVIET RELATIONS 1971-80" PUBLISHED BY POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION OF KERALA

EXHIBIT P8(A) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF JOURNAL STARS TITLED "TERRORISM : SOCIAL -POLITICAL DIMENSIONS" VOL.6, NO.1, JUNE 2005

EXHIBIT P8(B) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF JOURNAL TITLED "INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM : A GLOBAL THREAT", VOL.6, NO.2 DECEMBER 2005

EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF JOURNAL TITLED "THE PHARMACEUTICAL PATENTS IN INDIA : CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES"

EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 13.01.2012 WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017

EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF ORDER NO.4233/L/ACAD/2011 DATED 1ST AUGUST

EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.AII/3186/2010 DATED 10.03.2015

EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF THEM JUDGEMENT DATED 12.08.2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.4248/2012

EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SCREENING COMMITTEE DATED 16.12.2015

EXHIBIT P16 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06.09.2016

EXHIBIT P17 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.9.2016 INFORMING THAT THE INTERVIEW IS POSTPONED

EXHIBIT P18 COPY OF THE STATEMENT/AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY

EXHIBIT P19 COPY OF A NEWS ITEM THAT APPEARED IN THE INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY DATED 29.12.2016

EXHIBIT P20 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03.01.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

EXHIBIT P20(A) COPY OF THE REPLY NO.AD .AII/3/15/RTI/2017/ADMN.

DATED 07.02.2017 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY

EXHIBIT P21 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE

EXHIBIT P22 COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 20.1.2017 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P23 COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE UGC REGULATIONS REGARDING QUALIFICATION TO THE POST OF PROFESSOR

EXHIBIT P24 COPY OF THE ACCEPTANCE LETTER DATED 31.08.2010

EXHIBIT P25 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF JOURNAL TITLED "PUBLISHED RESEARCH ARTICLES"- LIFESTYLE DISEASES A THREAT TO KERALA ECONOMY, STARS WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017

EXHIBIT P26 COPY OF THE COVER PAGE OF THE PROJECT- "THE IMPACT OF EPIDEMICS ON THE ECONOMY OF KERALA STATE - A CASE STUDY OF MEENACHIL TALUK"

EXHIBIT P27 COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.6264/AC.AIX/I/2011/AC.AIX/I/2011/ACAD. DATED P.D.HILLS, 21.11.2011

EXHIBIT P28 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.12.1998 EVIDENCING THE APPOINTMNET OF DR.A.M.THOMAS AND DR.K.M.SEETHI

EXHIBIT P29 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD ALL(1)/5038/2017/ADMN DATED 19.06.2017 ISSUED BY M.G.UTY FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF PROFESSORS

EXHIBIT P30 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31.07.2017 NO.AII(1)5038/2017/ADMN ISSUED BY M.G.UNIVERSITY

EXHIBIT P31 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2018 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. UO 781/A11(1)2018.