Dr. Prabhakaran Nair V.R vs Mahatma Gandhi University
2021 Latest Caselaw 9216 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

               FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                               WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

PETITIONER :

                  DR. PRABHAKARAN NAIR V.R.,
                  AGED 42 YEARS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
                  DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, SANATANA DHARMA COLLEGE (S.D
                  COLLEGE), ALAPPUZHA.

                  BY ADVS.
                  SRI.M.V.BOSE
                  SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN

RESPONDENTS :

        1         MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
                  PRIYADARSINI HILLS - P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686 560,
                  REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR.

        2         THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
                  MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS - P.O,
                  KOTTAYAM - 686 560.

        3         THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT,
                  SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
                  PRIYADARSINI HILLS - P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686 560.

        4         SUJITHKUMAR PARAYIL,
                  ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY,
                  J.N.U CAMPUS, NEW DELHI - 11O 067.

                  *ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED

        5         THE SELECTION COMMITTEE,
                  NOTIFICATION NO.AD.A.II(I)/5038/2017/ADMN(3),
                  FACULTY RECRUITMENT - ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
                  MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS - P.O.
                  KOTTAYAM - 686 560, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON (THE VICE
                  CHANCELLOR)

                  *ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2021 IN
                  I.A.NO.1/2021

                  R1 TO R3 BY SRI.ASHOK M.CHERIAN, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
                  R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2021, THE
COURT ON 19-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

                                       2

                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of March 2021

Two pedagogues are fighting amongst themselves for

getting appointment as an Associate Professor in the School of Social

Sciences of the Mahatma Gandhi University. Pursuant to Ext.P2

notification, an interview was conducted and the 4th respondent was

declared as the first rank holder, while the writ petitioner received a

close second.

2. By the time the 4th respondent got himself relieved

from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and came down to join

the 3rd respondent, petitioner had obtained a stay of appointment

from this Court in this case. Thus the post of Associate Professor in

the School of Social Sciences, Mahatma Gandhi University, lies

unfilled for the last more than two and a half years.

3. Grievance of the writ petitioner is that selection and

appointment of the 4th respondent was highly arbitrary and

unreasonable, since he lacks the qualification prescribed for the post

and failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria, which rendered the 4 th

respondent even incompetent to participate in the interview, let alone

be selected. The writ petition, which initially contained only seven WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

documents as exhibits and five grounds has, by the time it was

heard, transformed into a voluminous bundle with a total of sixty six

exhibits and several allegations raised as challenges to the selection

of the 4th respondent.

4. The grounds raised in the writ petition were very brief

and general in nature. The gist of the allegations raised in the writ

petition was that the 4th respondent did not satisfy the qualifications

prescribed as per the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment

of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges

and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher

Education) Regulations, 2010 (for short 'Regulations'). It was pleaded

that the Ph.D Degree of the 4th respondent did not satisfy the

minimum qualification prescribed since it was not in the same subject

as the Master's degree and that it was not recognized by the

Mahatma Gandhi University. It was also alleged that the research

papers of the 4th respondent had not been published in a single UGC

approved journal and that the distribution of marks obtained by the

selected candidate therefore was suspect.

5. As mentioned earlier, as the litigation progressed, the

scope of the writ was enlarged by repeated filing of affidavits,

however without necessary amendments to the pleadings. In the WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

additional affidavits that were filed, either as reply affidavit or as

rejoinders, writ petitioner raised contentions relating to the 4 th

respondent's lack of post doctoral fellowship, lack of minimum API

score and the award of marks for his academic background as

contrary to the prescribed conditions. No specific allegation of

malafides have been pleaded and none have been impleaded in their

persona capacity. However, petitioner claims that his credentials are

all highly worthy, including his Ph.D from JNU and hence vaunts that

he should have been awarded the first rank.

6. The first respondent University filed a statement

pleading that the selection committee found the petitioner as well as

the 4th respondent as fulfilling the conditions prescribed in clause 4.3

of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and after interview, ranked the 4 th

respondent as the first rank and the petitioner as the second rank.

The proceedings of the selection committee was approved by the

Syndicate of the University on 30.06.2018 and it was thereafter that

Ext.P6 order appointing the 4th respondent as Associate Professor

was issued. The statement further pleaded that the Master's Degree

and the Doctoral degree are not insisted by the Regulations to be in

the same subject and further that the Ph.D secured by the 4 th

respondent was in cultural studies which was one of the subjects WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

under the Faculty of Social Sciences and the same was considered as

suitable. It was also mentioned that the Ph.D Degree obtained by

candidates from Deemed Universities and other recognized Indian

Universities are reciprocally recognised and that the absence of

Manipal University in the online portal of equivalence/ eligibility

certificate does not mean that the courses of that University was not

recognized. It was also averred that the mapping of various

universities was only under process and the absence of a university

in the online portal did not signify absence of recognition. The

University further reiterated that as a deemed University, the Ph.D

Degree obtained from such a University cannot be said to be not

recognized by the Mahatma Gandhi University. It was also

mentioned that the selection committee after scrutinizing the

documents and the credentials of the 4th respondent decided to

accept all the degrees obtained by the candidate from various

recognised Indian Universities and after considering both the

candidates, unanimously decided to select the 4 th respondent as the

most suitable candidate for the post of Associate Professor.

Regarding the satisfaction of the eligibility criteria, it was pleaded

that the 4th respondent had eight publications as research paper/

books instead of the required five, stipulated by Clause 4.3 of the WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

University Regulations and that, among the eight publications, four of

the research papers were published in UGC approved journals. It is

stated that the 4th respondent has also published a book in the year

2003. The selection committee thus decided to accept five

publications out of the above as satisfying the requirement of Clause

4.3 to enable consideration of the 4th respondent's candidature.

According to the University, though both the two candidates had

good academic track record, the selection committee on the basis of

marks secured at the interview, found the 4th respondent to be the

first rank holder and that the selection process was conducted in a

transparent way and in accordance with Regulations. As a concluding

note, the University had also stated that the 4 th respondent was at

the time of selection working in one of the most prestigious

institutions in the country, which itself evinces the merit of the 4 th

respondent.

7. The 4th respondent controverted the averments in the

writ petition and stated that it was not actually he who was under-

qualified for the post but that it was the writ petitioner, who was not

qualified to even participate in the interview. In support of 4 th

respondent's credentials, he pleaded that he holds a Master's Degree

in Interdisciplinary Social Sciences (a branch of History) from the WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

Faculty of Social Sciences, Mahatma Gandhi University apart from

Master of Philosophy in History from the University of Hyderabad and

a Ph.D. obtained from the Manipal University in 2007 which is not

only a deemed University, but also recognized as an Institute of

Eminence. In further justification of his qualifications, the 4 th

respondent stated that he was employed as a fellow at the Centre for

Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta for almost one year and that he

was appointed as an Assistant Professor at the Tata Institute of

Social Sciences, Mumbai. He also claimed that he had served as the

Dean of the School of Interdisciplinary Studies, English and Foreign

Languages University, Hyderabad and that from 02.04.2014

onwards, he was working as Assistant Professor at the JNU, New

Delhi. According to the 4th respondent, he has research papers, 8 in

number, published in various journals and that three students were

awarded Ph.D Degree under his supervision and thus he claims to be

fully qualified for the post.

8. Reply affidavits have been filed thrice by the writ

petitioner while rejoinder was filed by the 4 th respondent to the reply

affidavit of the petitioner. A further petition for accepting documents

had also been filed by the writ petitioner.

9. I have heard Adv.Vinod Madhavan, the learned counsel WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

for the petitioner, Sri.Ashok M.Cherian, the learned Standing Counsel

for the University and Adv.P.K.Ravishankar, the learned counsel for

the 4th respondent.

10. Adv.Vinod Madhavan while reiterating the contentions

in the writ petition, submitted that the difference in the marks

awarded at the interview between the two candidates, as seen from

the statement of the University was only 1.71, but as seen from

Ext.P17, 4th respondent was wrongly granted five marks for post

doctoral fellowship. The counsel invited my attention to Ext.P23 apart

from Exr.P22 and Ext.P66 and contended that 4 th respondent did not

have a post doctoral fellowship but only a letter of invitation to act as

a visiting fellow at an international University. It was also argued that

the 4th respondent lacked even the basic eligibility to apply for the

post notified, since he had only four research papers as against the

five required and that as evident from Ext.P19, ISBN number was

fraudulently inserted as '0000' so as to avoid rejection for failure to

provide the mandatory ISBN number. The learned counsel also

contended that the minimum API score of 300 required for being

selected for the interview could not have been attained by the 4 th

respondent and that he could have obtained at the most only 294

marks instead of 324.5 granted to him under Ext.P30. In conclusion, WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

it was argued that the 4 th respondent had not submitted the

equivalency certificate specified under the notification and the same

ought to have resulted in rejection of his application.

11. The learned counsel for the 4 th respondent, on the

other hand, argued that the writ petitioner has over the course of the

proceedings attempted to expand the scope of the writ petition to

enter into a roving enquiry into areas which have not been pleaded at

all. The counsel also submitted that the Regulations provide for a

different type of assessment at each stage of the recruitment process

and none can dispute the merits of the 4th respondent. He also points

out that the equivalency certificate though stipulated by the

notification was not produced by the petitioner for his Masters

Degree and the 4th respondent for his Ph.D Degree and if the

selection committee had chosen to ignore the absence of the

equivalency certificate for both candidates, the same cannot be found

fault with especially when both candidates were treated equally.

12. Adv.Ashok M.Cheriyan, the learned Standing Counsel

submitted that no allegations of mala fides or bias have been alleged

either against the University or against the selection committee and

also that the Ph.D degrees of deemed universities are recognized.

He submitted that the selection committee that consisted of five WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

eminent experts (wrongly mentioned as 8 experts in the statement)

had considered the relative merits and scrutinised the documents and

came to a conclusion. As experts, they have carried out their

functions in accordance with law and according to him, this Court in

exercise of the powers of judicial review may not be justified in

interfering with the process of selection in the absence of any

allegations of mala fides.

13. I have considered the rival contentions. Even though

in an attempt to render justice, a Court may feel compelled to

wander to areas beyond the realm of pleadings, precedents compel

that this Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review shall

confine itself to the pleadings and test every case on the basis of the

pleadings put forth through the foundation provided in the original

petition.

14. Viewed in the above light, it can be seen that the writ

petition was filed with the basic general pleading that the 4 th

respondent fell short of the eligibility criteria and ought not to have

been permitted to participate in the interview. No specific grounds of

mala fides or bias were pleaded in the writ petition and none have

been impleaded in a personal capacity. Thus this writ petition is to

be dealt with as one without any allegation of mala fides. WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

15. At the threshold of the discussion, it is necessary to

mention that, the Rules framed by the High Court of Kerala specify

that, no ground shall be relied upon unless it is sought for in the

original petition. For the purpose of reference Rule 155 of the Rules

of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 are extracted as below :

155. New ground or relief not to be raised.- No ground shall be relied upon and no relief sought at the hearing except the grounds taken and reliefs sought in the Original Petition and the accompanying affidavit :

16. The significance of the above quoted Rule was felt in

the instant case as this Court had to wade through a maze of

pleadings and documents to understand the contentions raised.

Reading through several affidavits and numerous documents which

were not paginated serially, as well as searching for the documents

produced at different times, added to the confusion in identifying the

true nature of challenge. This Court had in the decision in

Narayanan v. State of Kerala [1993 (1) KLT 461] observed as

below:

"it is necessary that all amendments to an original petition either in the averments or the prayers in the original petition or by way of production of new documents should be carried out in the original petition besides producing copies of WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

the amended original petition for the use of the court and for service on a contesting respondent......Having regard to the numbering of this annexure, it is clear that the petitioner intended that also to be treated as part of the original petition. But it has made its appearance in a petition for direction without being followed by any petition for amendment of the original petition. Production of such documents along with applications for interim relief to be treated as exhibits in the main petition also causes difficulties to the court and such production is not followed up by appropriate amendment. One of the problems that may arise is that the exhibits in question will remain unexplained and unanswered in any counter affidavit that may be filed by the respondents as it does not form part of the original petition itself. ........."

17. In the instant case, as mentioned earlier, the original

petition was filed with seven exhibits and very few grounds. But, in

the reply affidavits that were filed and in the petitions to accept the

documents, together, increased the exhibits to sixty six number and

the pleadings also expanded. It is necessary that the parties to the

lis adhere strictly to the provisions under Rule 155 of the High Court

Rules. Documents required to be relied upon must form part of

pleadings and if they are not filed along with the original petition,

amendment must be sought for.

18. Be that as it may, the scope of interference in the

recruitment process of academic bodies have been considered WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

by the Supreme Court in several decisions. The learned Standing

Counsel invited my attention to the decisions in National Institute

of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. K.Kalyana Raman

(Dr.) and Others [(1992) Supp (2) SCC 481], Kumar Bar Das

(Dr.) v.Utkal University And Others [(1999) 1 SCC 453] and

[email protected] Chikkamylarappa (Dr.)v. R.Venkatasubbaiah

(Dr.) and Others [(2008) 14 SCC 306]. The above decisions lead

to the conclusion that a selection committee is a purely

administrative body and in the absence of proven mala fides, the

decision of such selection committees ought not to be interfered with

by the court in exercise of the powers of judicial review. It can also

be understood that, unless the allegations levelled by one of the rival

contesting parties is substantiated beyond doubt, interference with

the selection process ought not to be made lightly.

19. No person can claim selection as a matter of right. The

selection committee is mandated to carry out an overall assessment

of the performance of each candidate and in that process adopt the

same standards, yardsticks and norms. The selection may call for

interference only when the process of assessment is vitiated on

grounds of malafides or bias or arbitrariness. Further the Courts

should be loathe to delve into issues raised by persons who were WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

unsuccessful in the selection process, especially in the absence of

proven malafides. The above propositions can be derived from the

decisions in Union of India and Another v. A. K Narula [(2007)

11 SCC 10] and Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai V.

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Others [(2007) 8 SCC

644].

20. It has also been held in the decision in Dalpat

Abasaheb Solunke and Others v. B.S Mahajan (Dr.) and

Others [(1990)1 SCC 305], that it is not the function of the court to

scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates and the court has no

expertise to identify which candidate is fit for a particular post and

the scope of interfering with such a selection process by a court

under Article 226 is very limited and the court cannot sit in appeal or

substitute its views to that of the selection committee. Scrutinizing

the reactive merits of each candidate is also not the function of

Courts while exercising the power of judicial review. It has also been

held that undue interference by the courts may result in paralysing

the administration as it is seen in the present case, since for the last

2 years, by an interim order of this court, the post of Associate

Professor with the 3rd respondent is lying vacant. As held in the

decision in Basavaiah (Dr.) v. H.L Ramesh (Dr.) and Others WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

[(2010) 8 SCC 372], the court cannot assume the role of a selection

committee and is not entitled to substitute its opinion and devise its

own method of evaluating fitness of a candidate for a particular post.

It would be going too far if the court itself evaluates a fitness or

otherwise of a candidate.

21. Evaluating the marks awarded, analysing the

incorrectness or wrong calculation of the marks awarded are all

matters not within the scope of judicial review, especially in the

absence of any malafides or glaring arbitrariness, pleaded and and

proven. The marks to be awarded, that too in an interview, is a

matter that is relative and cannot be the basis of a subjective

analysis by a court of law. Ordinarily, the courts should show

deference to the wisdom of the selection committee in their

assessment of the relative merits of the candidates and the marks

awarded by the selection committee and not assume to itself the said

role.

22. With the above principles in mind, when the case on

hand is appreciated, it can be understood that the selection was

conducted on the basis of Ext.P2 notification issued under the

Regulations. The recruitment methodology is stipulated in Clause 3 of

Ext.P13. It provides that the direct recruitment to the post of WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

Associate Professors shall be on the basis of merit through All India

advertisement and selections are to be carried out by a duly

constituted selection committee. The minimum qualifications required

are those stipulated in Clause 4.3.0 of the Regulations, which are as

follows :

(i) Good academic record with a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned/ allied/ relevant disciplines.

(ii) A Masters' Degree with atleast 55% marks.

(iii) A minimum of 8 years of experience of teaching/ or research in academic/ research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University college or accredited research institution/ industry excluding the period of Ph.D research with evidence of published work and a minimum of 5 publications as books and/or research/ policy papers.

(iv) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses and technology-mediated teaching learning process with evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students.

(v) A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) set out in this Regulation in Appendix 3.

23. Clause 4.3 of the Regulations stipulate the basic

conditions to be satisfied. Though the pleadings in the case are found

wanting to justify the arguments raised at the time of hearing, and

the lack of amendment to incorporate additional grounds and exhibits WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

into the original petition legally disentitles any consideration by this

Court of the various claims put forth, still, in order to do justice to

the arguments addressed, the contentions raised and argued are

dealt with one by one as below :-

(i). Allegation of lack of Ph.D. Degree in the required subject.

24. Ext.P2 adopts the Regulations for the qualifications.

The first qualification prescribed in the Regulations is Ph.D

in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline. What is a

concerned/allied/relevant discipline has not been specified. The

discipline for which applications were invited were subjects under

Social Sciences. Whether a particular Ph.D comes under a concerned

or allied or relevant discipline is a matter for the experts to decide.

When such a wide terminology is prescribed in the Regulations and

the same is adopted in the notification, the intention of the first

respondent is clear that the choice must not be confined to any

particular subject but must have a wider coverage. The statement of

the University that the Ph.D of the 4th respondent was in cultural

studies which was one of the subjects under the Faculty of Social

Sciences and the same was considered as suitable cannot in he

circumstances, be found fault with. Further, in the nature of

terminology used in the regulations, this Court cannot, in exercise of WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

sit over the decision of the expert body. When the selection

committee accepted the Ph.D of the 4th respondent as coming within

the expressions 'concerned/ allied/ relevant discipline', in the

absence of any proven mala fides, interference with such a decision

cannot be done.

(ii). Subject for Ph.D is different from the Masters Degree.

25. It was contended that the subject for Ph.D of the 4 th

respondent was different from the Masters degree he had obtained. A

perusal of the qualifications prescribed under the regulations, when

read with Ext. P2 notification, it is explicit that while describing the

qualification, the University did not intend that the subject of Ph.D

must be in the subject as the candidate's Master's degree. When the

notification and the Regulations do not stipulate such a prescription,

it is not for this Court to read into the notification something which is

not provided for. In fact, it is evident that the University never

intended that the candidate must have his Ph.D in the same subject

as his Masters Degree as otherwise the same would have been

prescribed in the notification.

WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

(iii). Absence of minimum 5 publications.

26. Clause 4.3.0(iii) stipulates that the candidate must

have a minimum 8 years of experience in teaching with evidence of

published work and a minimum of 5 publications as books and/or

research/policy papers. Publication in UGC approved journal is not a

requirement stipulated. In the statement of the University, it refers

to four research papers of the 4th Respondent as published in the

UGC approved journal and four other published works. A perusal of

the qualifications prescribed in the clause mentioned above shows

that the 5 publications required as minimum eligibility are not

stipulated as requiring publication in a UGC approved journal. It is

not legally justifiable to read into a condition of eligibility, what is not

specified. In fact, the statement of the University goes to show that

the 4th respondent has 8 research papers/books submitted by him,

out of which four research papers are published in UGC approved

journals. The 5 publications stipulated as per the eligibility clause are

taken from the above mentioned 8 publications. In such a view of the

matter, this court is of the view that the 4th respondent satisfied

clause (iii) of the eligibility criteria.

(iv). 4th respondent does not have a minimum API score of 300.

27. As per category IIIB of the Regulations, a minimum WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

API score of 300 is prescribed which is to be assessed based on

verifiable records and to be finalised by the screening evaluation

committee. In category IIIB, a minimum score of 30 per book

published by international publishers with ISBN/ISSN numbers

approved by the University is required to be given. It has been

canvassed that the 4th respondent could not have obtained the

minimum score of 300 required for two reasons. The first point

canvassed under this head relates to absence of ISBN number for

one of the publications to overcome which, 4 th respondent had

inserted '0000' in the application for one of the publication since 4 th

respondent has only four publications with ISBN number. The second

point relates to marks awarded for guiding candidates for doctoral

degree. It was argued that award of 30 marks on the above two

counts was illegal and hence if the said marks are deleted, the 4 th

respondent falls below the minimum requirement of 300 marks.

28. The contentions raised as above, though impressive,

especially the one relating to the absence of ISBN number for one of

the publications, is however required to be approached in a different

manner in the peculiar facts of the case. The writ petition does not

contain any allegation of absence of minimum score under the API.

The aforesaid contention is taken up in the reply affidavit and the WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

rejoinder filed by the writ petitioner. Appropriate amendments have

not been made by the writ petitioner even after realizing the

availability of such grounds. Strict applicability of API score on the

date of selection and the manner in which the scores are to be

tabulated are areas of disputed facts which obviously required

stronger foundations in the pleadings for this Curt to decide. In the

said circumstances this Court is constrained to avoid determining the

said disputed questions of fact.

29. The aforesaid conclusion is also fortified by the fact

that in order to determine the correctness of the above submission of

the counsel for the Petitioner, this Court will have to undertake a

calculation of the various scores awarded to the 4 th respondent and

indulge in a process of addition or subtraction and even

multiplication. Mathematical calculations or attempts at doing so are

not to be resorted to, in exercise of power of judicial review, except

in rare circumstances. Proven mala fides, glaring arbitrariness,

selection of a totally incompetent and ineligible candidate, are some

of the circumstances when this Court can resort to such an attempt.

This is not such a rare situation warranting this Court to indulge in

such a mathematical exercise. Thus, I am of the view that award of

marks and the quantum awarded cannot be the subject of judicial WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

review in the absence of specific materials pleaded and proved. What

are the marks to be added or subtracted or multiplied with and what

are to be awarded are all matters within the realm of the authority of

the selection committee and in the absence of any specific malafides

pleaded, it would not be justiciable for the court under Article 226 to

interfere with such calculation of score.

(v). Absence of Post Doctoral Fellowship.

30. The allegation of absence of post doctoral fellowship

is also raised as an afterthought. The pleadings in that regard are

completely absent in the writ petition. What is a post-doctoral

fellowship is not pleaded in the writ petition. Ext. P23 is stated to be

the certificate produced by the 4th respondent as evidence of the

post-doctoral fellowship obtained by him. It is contented that the

same is only a letter and not a certificate. Though the term

fellowship can have different connotations, in the absence of a

specific definition for the said term in the notification or Regulations,

the Court cannot import the meaning ascribed by either of the parties

to the said term. In such a scenario, it is only prudent for the Court

to leave it to the wisdom of the expert body. If the Selection

Committee has sought to accept Ext.P23 as sufficient indication of

the post-doctoral fellowship, then it is not for this Court to interfere WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

with such acceptance, especially in the absence of any specified

guidelines on what are to be treated as fellowship.

(vi). Absence of equivalency certificate.

31. The Ph.D degree obtained by the 4 th respondent is

from Manipal University - an institution outside the State of Kerala.

Clause III(6) of general conditions in Ext.P2 notification stipulates

that equivalency certificate must be submitted for degrees obtained

from outside the Universities in the State. The Ph.D degree of the 4 th

respondent is from a deemed university. The Masters degree of the

petitioner is from the Jawaharlal Nehru University. Both the said

Universities are outside Kerala and a strict compliance to the clause

in the general condition would have resulted in rejection of

applications of the petitioner, as well as the 4th respondent. Since

both universities are institutes of eminence, ignoring the requirement

of an equivalency certificate for both the petitioner, as well as the 4 th

respondent cannot be regarded as a sufficient reason to interfere

with the selection of the 4th respondent. The total absence of

pleadings in the writ petition in that regard also weighs with this

court in coming to this conclusion.

Taking note of the circumstances mentioned above, this

Court is of the view that the discretionary jurisdiction to interfere in WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226, is not

required to be invoked in the instant case to upset the conclusion of

the Selection Committee. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with

the selection of the 4th respondent, for the post of Associate Professor

under the 3rd respondent.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

RKM WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DOCTOR PHILOSOPHY ISSUED BY THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION, DT.16/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY FOR FACULTY RECRUITMENT TO THE POSTS OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS/SCHOOLS OF THE UNIVERSITY.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT.28/02/2015 ISSUED BY THE CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES AWARDING THE PETITIONER THE POST DOCTORAL RESEARCH AWARD IN ECONOMICS.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE PETITIONER, AS ON THE LAST DATE OF SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION, IN THE RESEARCH JOURNALS APPROVED BY THE U.G.C. AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS, ALONG WITH THE PUBLICATION OF HIS BOOK AND CHAPTERS IN OTHER BOOKS.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST DT.03/07/2018 FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS INCLUDING THE DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES PUBLISHED BY THE M.G. UNIVERSITY.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.03/07/2018 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT AFFORDING APPOINTMENT AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENCES.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES DESCRIBING THE EQUIVALENCY - ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATES DOWNLOADED FROM HE WEBSITE OF THE M.G.UNIVERSITY.