Dr.Elizabeth George vs Cochin University Of Science And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2560 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

      FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 2ND MAGHA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.4623 OF 2020(C)


PETITIONER/S:

                DR.ELIZABETH GEORGE
                AGED 45 YEARS
                W/O.BIJU C.MANI, RESIDING AT CHERIYANIRAPPEL,
                EDAYAPPURAM ROAD, ALUVA (PO), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
                PIN-683 101.

                BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-682 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                REGISTRAR.

      2         THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
                TECHNOLOGY,
                KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-682 022.

      3         SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES,
                COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
                KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-682 022.

      4         THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR RECRUITMENT OF ASSOCIATE
                PROFESSOR,
                COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
                KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-682 022.

                R1-2 BY SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SC, COCHIN
                UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD           ON
22.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4623 OF 2020(C)

                                  2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of January 2021

The petitioner has laid challenge to promulgation of

re-notification dated 26.12.2019, Ext.P3 whereby the posts

advertised by the notification dated 17.8.2015, Ext.P1 have been

re-notified.

2. The facts, as noticed from the pleadings are, that the

petitioner is a Ph.D holder from a Department of Applied

Economics, Faculty of Social Science from the Cochin University

of Science and Technology (CUSAT) in the subject of

Psychological Empowerment. She also hold Bachelor of

Commerce undergraduate from St.Xaviers's College for Women,

Aluva has also completed her Master of Business

Administration. The petitioner being qualified and aspirant to

the post of Associate Professor in the CUSAT, in pursuance, to

the notification dated 17.8.2015 ,whereby, applications to the

post of Associate Professor to various Subjects in the 1 st

respondent University were invited submitted application. The

notification also included advertisement to the post of Associate WP(C).No.4623 OF 2020(C)

Professor in Personal Management/Industrial Relations from

the open category. Candidates were required to submit an

information data sheet citing their qualification and paper

publications which was submitted vide Ext.P2 (a) before the

last date of the application ie., 17.9.2015.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the petitioner was flabbergasted to

notice the re-notification dated 26.12.2019, Ext.P3 with

respect to the post of Associate Professor in seven(7)

subjects /specialization which was already notified way back

in 2015, Ext.P1. During the interregnum, first respondent did

not conduct any selection procedure or published any result.

Applicants who had applied in pursuance to the first

notification Ext.P1 were exempted from payment of fees and

their age limit was to be reckoned as per the conditions in the

earlier notification. Petitioner concededly, submitted again

application before the expiry date as evidenced from Ext.P4.

But through the instant writ petition has assailed Ext.P3 on

the premise that the cancellation of Ext.P1 without conduct of

any selection process is illegal, arbitrary. There should have

been a decision on the process of selection initiated vide WP(C).No.4623 OF 2020(C)

Ext.P1 nor Ext.P1 has been cancelled. The persons who were

not qualified as on Ext.P1, but acquired qualification

subsequently are now eligible to apply. The action of re-

notification is therefore detrimental to the opportunities of the

petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the writ petition is not

maintainable as the petitioner had already submitted an

application pursuance to Ext.P3 and by way of interim relief

has sought a direction to the first respondent to conduct

selection procedure to the post of Associate Professor-

Personal Management/Industrial Relations from amongst the

applications received against Ext.P1 notification and publish

the results until which time all further proceedings pursuant

to Ext.P3 notification may be kept in abeyance. The

application received in pursuance to the notification Ext.P1

was scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee held on 1.2.2016.

Against Sl.No.35, to which the petitioner had submitted

application, only five applicants had applied including the one

submitted by the petitioner. While scrutinizing the

application the minimum Application Programming Interface WP(C).No.4623 OF 2020(C)

(API) score for the post of Associate Professors was not

ascertained. The interview for the posts of Associate

Professor in School of Management Studies notified as

Sl.Nos.29, 31, 32 and 33 was conducted on 24th and 25th

October 2019. The Selection Committee recommended a rank

list only against one post of Associate Professor Finance

Management in which two candidates were ranked out of the

nine applications accepted by the Scrutiny Committee. No

candidates were found eligible to be ranked for the other

posts notified as Sl.Nos.29, 31 and 32 and hence these posts

were proposed for re-notification. While considering conduct

of interview for the remaining posts notified as Sl.Nos. 34 and

35, the Vice Chancellor ordered to re-notify these posts along

with the above mentioned posts due to the availability of only

very few eligible applicants. Scrutiny Committee did not

ascertain the satisfaction of minimum API Score of 300 as per

the UGC Regulations, then in force, for the candidates whose

applications had been accepted, many of the candidates who

reported for the interview conducted on 24th and 25th October

2019 for Sl.Nos 29, 31, 32 and 33 were not permitted to

attend the interview as majority did not satisfy the minimum WP(C).No.4623 OF 2020(C)

required API score. All these aspects led to the re-

notification of the posts. Ext.P3 notification has taken care of

the interest of the candidates regarding the exemption,

payment of fees and the age limit. In fact no selection

process was conducted pursuant to Ext.P1 and Ext.P1 is

deemed to have been cancelled. There is no such allegation of

malafide in issuing Ext.P3.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties,

appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no

force and merit in the submission of the learned counsel for

the petitioner. All the aspirants have a right for consideration

but cannot delineate a right from the notification which has

not culminated into initiation of any selection process. The

reason assigned in the counter affidavit as noticed in the

argument of the learned counsel for the respondent, in my

view do not spell out any element of favouritism, malafides or

arbitrariness. It is also settled law the candidates who had

already submitted application in pursuance to Ext.P3

notification cannot permitted to turn around and challenge

the criteria. It should have been much before participation.

Such candidates cannot be permitted to approbate or WP(C).No.4623 OF 2020(C)

reprobate. Scrutiny Committee found that the minimum API

score was wanting. It was one of the ground for issuance of

re-notification as number of the applications received, were

minimal whereas no application was received the post

notified at Sl.No.30. None of the candidates were found

eligible to be ranked for other posts notified at Sl.Nos.29, 31

and 32. The action of the respondents in re-notifying the

aforementioned proposal cannot be faulted with as it does not

suffer from any jurisdictional error or policy making decision.

The writ petition is devoid of the merits and accordingly

dismissed.

Sd/-

                                        AMIT RAWAL

  sab                                      JUDGE
 WP(C).No.4623 OF 2020(C)




                             APPENDIX
  PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

  EXHIBIT P1           TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING
                       NO.AD.D3/136/NOTIF./08(2) DATED
                       17.08.2015 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.

  EXHIBIT P2           TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
                       THE PETITIONER BEARING REGISTRATION
                       NO.SMS-133-5302 DATED 16.09.2015.

  EXHIBIT P2 A         TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATA SHEET
                       SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
                       14.09.2015.

  EXHIBIT P3           TRUE COPY OF THE RE-NOTIFICATION BEARING
                       NO.AD.D2/136/NOTIF/2018(I) DATED
                       26.12.2019.

  EXHIBIT P4           TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IS BEARING
                       REGISTRATION NO.SMS-477-26654 DATED
                       16.01.2020.

  EXHIBIT P5           TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 11.04.2019
                       IN W.P(c) NO.36652 OF 2018 OF THIS
                       HON'BLE COURT.