Kerala High Court
Dr.Sumesh.S vs The Central University Of Kerala on 3 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1943
WA NO. 886 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2018 IN WP(C) 32410/2016
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER:
DR.SUMESH.S,RESIDING AT SREE HARI BHAVAN 242,
KARZHMA WEST,CHERUKKOL P.O.,
MAVELIKKARA-690 104.
BY ADVS.
K.P.PRADEEP
SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN
SMT.NEENA ARIMBOOR
SRI.T.T.BIJU
SMT.T.THASMI
SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
TEJASWINI HILLS P.O.,PERIYA,
KASARDGODE-671 316
2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR ,
THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
TEJASWINI HILLS P.O.,PERIYA,
KASARDGODE-671 316
3 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR ASST.PROFESSOR
PUBLIC HEALTH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA, TEJASWINI HILLS P.O.,
PERIYA, KASARDGODE-671 316
4 JAYALAKSHMI RAJEEV,
RESIDING AT PUTHER NPURACKAL,
MUNDAKAYAM P.O.,CHELIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM 686 513.
:2:
W.A.No.886 of 2019
ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED.
5 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,NEW DELHI-110 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT AS
PER THE ORDER DTD.23/02/21 IN I.A.NO.1/2020 IN
WA NO.886/2019.
R1 TO R3 BY SC, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
ADV.SRI.V.SAJITH KUMAR,
R4 BY ADV.SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
R5 BY ADV.SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
:3:
W.A.No.886 of 2019
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & GOPINATH P., JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.A No. 886 of 2019
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2021
JUDGMENT
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.32410 of 2016, is the appellant
before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.11.2018 of the learned
single Judge. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of the writ appeal,
are as follows:
The appellant/writ petitioner, Dr.Sumesh S., as well as the 4 th
respondent, Ms.Jayalakshmi Rajeev, had both responded to Ext.P1
notification dated 04.12.2015 issued by the Central University of Kerala
that invited applications from candidates for appointment to the post of
Assistant Professor in Public Health. There were four vacancies
notified, of which two vacancies were unreserved and one vacancy each
was reserved for Scheduled Caste and OBC candidates. It is not in
dispute that both the appellant and the 4 th respondent applied for the
OBC vacancy, and in the selection process that ensued, the 4 th
respondent was duly selected. The writ petition was filed impugning the
selection of the 4th respondent inter alia on the contention that the 4 th
respondent did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for appointment to the
post as she did not have a Post Graduation in Public Health together
W.A.No.886 of 2019
with a NET qualification. It was pointed out that although pursuant to
Ext.P4 notification published by the Central Board of Secondary
Education prescribing the UGC-NET requirements for eligibility for the
post of Assistant Professor or Junior Research Fellowship or both, a
NET examination was held in Social Medicine and Community Health,
the 4th respondent did not appear for the same and, consequently, she
had to be seen as not qualified for the post of Assistant Professor. The
writ petitioner, on the other hand, possessed a Master's Degree in
Public Health and had also cleared the NET examination in Social
Medicine and Community Health. It was contended therefore that
vis-a-vis the 4th respondent, the writ petitioner was better qualified to
be appointed as the Assistant Professor. It was the further contention of
the writ petitioner that the selection process was vitiated by bias
inasmuch as one of the members of the selection committee was
functioning as the head of the institute where the 4 th respondent was
pursuing a Ph.D. Programme. Discrepancies were also alleged as
regards the evaluation of the rival candidates and it was the case of the
writ petitioner, placing reliance on the copies of the evaluation sheets
obtained by him under the Right to Information Act, that the scores
awarded to the candidates were tampered with after the selection
process.
2. Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the University as
also the 4th respondent justifying the selection of the 4 th respondent. In
W.A.No.886 of 2019
particular, it was pointed out that the 4 th respondent had obtained the
benefit of the exemption provided under the Regulation 3.3.2 of the
UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of
Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and
Measures for the maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010
(hereinafter referred to as "2010 Regulations") which states that NET
qualification will not be insisted from holders of Master's Degree in
disciplines for which NET accredited test is not conducted. The 4 th
respondent, who is a Master's Degree holder in Public Health, was
found eligible for the exemption inasmuch as no NET test was
conducted in the discipline of Public Health. A reply affidavit was filed
by the writ petitioner refuting the averments in the counter affidavits
filed on behalf of the respondents.
3. The learned single Judge, who considered the issue, relied on
the provisions of Regulation 3.3.2 aforementioned to hold that
inasmuch as the UGC had not conducted any test in the discipline of
Public Health, the 4th respondent could not be seen as ineligible for
selection to the post of Assistant Professor. The selection process was
accordingly held proper and legal and the writ petition was dismissed
on that basis. It is relevant to note that the ground relating to bias, that
was taken in the writ petition, was not seriously urged before the
learned single Judge and, therefore, was not considered by the learned
single Judge.
W.A.No.886 of 2019
4. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner
Dr.K.P.Pradeep would confine his submissions to the aspect of eligibility
of the 4th respondent to the post of Assistant Professor in the
Department of Public Health and Community Medicine. It is his
contention that a conjoint reading of clauses 14, 19 and 20 of Ext.P4
notification issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education clearly
indicates that the Post Graduation course leading to the degree of
Master of Public Health involves a study of the subjects - Social
Medicine and Community Health - that are listed in the said notification
as subjects relevant to the post graduate degree and hence, the 4 th
respondent had necessarily to clear the NET exam held in those
subjects. The contention, in other words, is that although Ext.R4(d)
Regulations provided for an exemption from obtaining NET qualification
in cases where a NET examination was not conducted in the discipline
in which the candidate concerned had the Master's Degree, in the
instant case, the 4th respondent, who held a Masters Degree in Public
Health could not claim the benefit of the exemption since the NET
examination was in fact held in the allied subjects of Social Medicine
and Community Health, and she had chosen not to appear for the said
examination. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel
places reliance on Clause 3(iv) of Ext.P4 notification, which reads as
follows :
"iv) Candidates are advised to appear in the
W.A.No.886 of 2019
subject of their post graduation only. The candidates,
whose post graduation subject is not covered in the
list of subjects in item No.14 (on page 12-13), may
appear in a related subject."
5. Persuasive though the said contention may appear at first
blush, we are afraid we cannot accept the same. We are of the view that
Ext.R4(d) Regulations and Ext.P4 notification operate in different
spheres. While the former, a statutory notification by the UGC,
prescribes the eligibility conditions for appointment to various teaching
posts, including that of Assistant Professors, in Universities, the latter is
a notification published by the Central Board of Secondary Education
prescribing the modalities for holding the NET Examination. A reading
of the latter notification clearly reveals that NET Examinations are held
not only for candidates seeking appointment as Assistant Professors,
but also for those seeking to pursue Junior Research Fellowships
(JRF's). The instructions given in Ext.P4 notification clearly indicate
that while the former candidates will be governed by the Rules and
Regulations for the recruitment of Assistant Professor of the
Universities/Colleges/State Governments concerned, the latter
candidates who qualify for the award of Junior Research Fellowship can
pursue research in the subject of their Post Graduation or in a related
subject (emphasis supplied). In our view, Clause 3(iv) of the said
notification which clarifies that the candidates whose Post Graduation
W.A.No.886 of 2019
subject is not covered in the list of subjects appended to the
notification, may appear in a related subject is a clear indication that
the option given is to those candidates who seek to pursue a JRF either
in the discipline in which they have their Masters Degree or in a related
subject for which a NET Examination is conducted. The concept of
related subject is thus one that is relevant only for those candidates
who want to pursue a JRF in the said related subject and not for those
who seek appointment as Assistant Professor. Inasmuch as the 4 th
respondent in the instant case was only aspiring for the post of
Assistant Professor, we are of the view that the concept of related
subject that finds mention in Ext.P4 notification has no relevance in
determining the eligibility of the 4 th respondent for the post of Assistant
Professor. We therefore cannot accept the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant based on Ext.P4 notification that the 4 th
respondent was not eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professor.
6. There is yet another view of the matter. The eligibility of both
the appellant as well as the 4 th respondent has to be determined in
accordance with the statutory Regulations (Ext.R4(d)). The specific
provisions of Regulations are clear and unambiguous when they state
that a person needs to possess a NET qualification only if there is an
examination conducted in the discipline in which the candidate has the
Master's Degree. The express provisions of the said Regulations cannot
be controlled by the terms of Ext.P4 notification issued by the Central
W.A.No.886 of 2019
Board of Secondary Education. This is more so because, as already
noted above, the Regulations and the notification operate in different
spheres. That apart, we are of the view that interpreting the 2010
Regulations with reference to the terms of Ext.P4 notification would
have the effect of rendering otiose the exemptions expressly provided
for in those Regulations and hence such a course of action is to be
eschewed.
The upshot of the aforesaid discussions is that we find no reason
to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned single judge
and, for the reasons stated therein, as supplemented by the reasons in
this judgment, this writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
cks
