Dr. Mohammed Aslam M.A vs The Central University Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 18060 Ker

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

                                          &

                        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

            FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943

                                 WA NO. 1990 OF 2019

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.07.2019 IN WP(C) 29991/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             DR. MOHAMMED ASLAM M.A.,AGED 47 YEARS,ASSOCIATE
             PROFESSOR,SREYAS,KMC VIII/306,ANANGOOR,VIDYA
             NAGAR.P.O,KASARAGOD,KERALA,PIN-671123.

             BY ADVS.P.K.IBRAHIM
             SMT.K.P.AMBIKA

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1       THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS
             REGISTRAR,TEJASWINI HILLS,PERIYE.P.O,KASARAGOD,PIN-671316.

     2       THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL,CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
             PERIYE.P.O,KASARAGOD,PIN-671316,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/VICE
             CHANCELLOR.

     3       THE CHAIRMAN,SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR THE POST OF
             PROFESSOR IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE,CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF
             KERALA,TEJASWINI HILLS,PERIYE.P.O,KASARAGOD,PIN-671316.


     4       DR.MUTHUKUMAR,PROFESSOR,DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
             SCIENCE,CENTRAL UNIVESITY OF KERALA,TEJASWINI
             HILLS,PERIYE.P.O,KASARAGOD,PIN-671316
             HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS AT 32 A,ATHIPATTI,BOOTHIPURAM POST,THENI
             DISTRICT,TAMIL NADU,PIN-625531.

     5       DR.MOHANRAJ RANGASWAMY,ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,DEPARTMENT OF
             ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT,SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
             SCIENCES,BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY,TIRUCHIRAPPALLY,PIN-620024.

     6       THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION(UGC),BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,NEW
             DELHI-110002.

             BY ADVS.SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
             SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR,SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
             SRI.S.ANEESH,SMT.AMRUTHA SANJEEV.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WA No.1990/2019                        2

                                JUDGMENT

Gopinath, J.

This writ appeal arises from the judgment of a learned single Judge of

this Court in W.P.(C)No.29991/2017. The appellant, who was the writ

petitioner, filed W.P.(C)No.29991/2017 challenging the selection and

appointment of the 4th respondent in the writ petition to the post of Professor

in Environmental Science in the Central University of Kerala and for a

declaration that the appellant/writ petitioner is entitled to be selected and

appointed to that post in preference to others including the 4 th respondent.

The contentions raised before the learned Single Judge were that only an

Associate Professor can be selected and appointed as Professor; that the

application of the 4th respondent was not in the prescribed format and that the

selection committee had manipulated the marks allotted to the appellant/writ

petitioner by the screening committee. Insofar as the first contention is

concerned, the learned single Judge, on a consideration of the relevant

regulations contained in the University Grants Commission

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 'the 2010 Regulations'),

found that the contention of the appellant/writ petitioner is to be rejected for

the reason that the conditions prescribed for promotion under the Career

Advancement Scheme (CAS) in the 2010 Regulations cannot be made

applicable in the case of direct recruitment. Insofar as the contention

regarding the failure on the part of the 4 th respondent to apply in the

prescribed form is concerned, the learned single Judge found that, since it is

the admitted case that the application submitted by the 4 th respondent was in

the form available in the website of the University, no fault can be found with

the University in accepting the application of the 4 th respondent. Regarding

the allegation of manipulation of marks by the screening committee, the

learned single Judge found that the selection committee had only re-allotted

the marks on the basis of the relevant clauses in the 2010 Regulations

wherever it had found that the screening committee had committed a mistake

in allotting certain marks. The learned single Judge also rejected the

contention of the appellant/writ petitioner that it is only the screening

committee that could have carried out corrections on the finding that the UGC

Regulations do not prescribe any procedure for the screening committee and it

only provided for the constitution of a selection committee. The

appellant/writ petitioner has, therefore, preferred this appeal on the premise

that the contentions raised had not been properly considered by the learned

single Judge.

2. Sri. P.K. Ibrahim, the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/writ petitioner would contend, with reference to Appendix- I to

2010 Regulations, that a reading of sub-clause (xiii) of clause 2(a) of the

Appendix-I clearly shows that only an Associate Professor, who has completed

a minimum of three years service with grade pay of Rs.9,000/- and possessing

a PhD in the relevant discipline, will be eligible to be appointed and

designated as Professor. He submits that the 4th respondent was admittedly

not an Associate Professor and his grade pay was only Rs.8,000/-. He

submits that the 5th respondent also could not be considered as qualified as

he was only an Assistant Professor, at the relevant time. He would then

contend that the format for application is the one in Ext.P-11 and Ext.P-10

application submitted by the 4th respondent would show that the 4 th

respondent had modified and manipulated the prescribed format so as to

include certain details while conveniently excluding certain important criteria.

He also contends with reference to Ext.R1(a) that the marks allotted by the

screening committee had been clearly manipulated by the selection committee

so as to make the 4th respondent more eligible than the appellant/writ

petitioner for being appointed to the post of Professor.

3. Per contra, Sri. V. Sajith Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the 1st respondent University would contend that the contention

of the appellant/writ petitioner that only Associate Professors can be selected

and appointed as Professors goes against the express terms of the 2010

Regulations itself. He submits that a reference to the notification issued by

the University and the clauses in Appendix-I, which are relied upon by the

learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner indicate that the condition

that one must be an Associate Professor to be promoted/appointed as

Professor stems from an incorrect interpretation placed by the appellant/writ

petitioner on Appendix-I to the 2010 Regulations. He submits that the

stipulation relied upon by the appellant/writ petitioner refers to placement

under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) of the UGC and not in respect

of direct recruitment. In other words, he submits that, if a person has all the

qualifications prescribed by the UGC Regulations for appointment to the post

of Professor, notwithstanding the fact that the person concerned is not an

Associate Professor, he/she could still be considered for direct recruitment as

Professor. Referring to the averments in the counter affidavit regarding the

format of the application submitted by the 4 th respondent, he submits that the

form used by the 4th respondent was the one available on the website of the

University and that all material particulars had been set out in the application

by the 4th respondent. Minor and cosmetic changes in the format should not,

according to the learned Standing Counsel, deprive the person concerned of a

chance of competing with others for selection. Referring to Ext.R1(a) and

Ext.R1(b) produced along with counter affidavit filed by the Registrar of the 1 st

respondent University, it is submitted that the selection committee is the

ultimate authority to decide on the merit or demerit of a person claiming

appointment to the post of Professor and that the selection committee had

also caused similar corrections in the assessment of the 4th respondent.

4. We have considered the rival contentions. We are of the opinion that

the learned single Judge has rightly rejected the first contention raised by the

appellant/writ petitioner that only Associate Professors can aspire to be

appointed as Professors. We are of the view that the learned single Judge has

not erred in law in holding that the clauses relied upon by the appellant/writ

petitioner with reference to stipulations in Appendix-I are not applicable in

the case of direct recruitment to the post of Professor. Stipulations relied

upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner relate to

placement under the Career Advancement Scheme and not to direct

recruitment to the post of Professor. We cannot read the relevant clauses of

UGC Regulations as having stipulated that a person cannot be appointed

directly as a Professor even if he or she is fully qualified for that post on

account of the fact that the person concerned has not worked in the cadre of

Associate Professor with grade pay of Rs.9,000/- as stipulated in Appendix-I.

We are convinced that the learned single Judge has taken the correct decision

in law. It is trite that in any career advancement scheme, a prescribed period

of residency in the next lower post is essential. It is not so in the case of direct

recruitment. Further, the notification issued by the University was not

challenged in any manner by the appellant/writ petitioner despite the fact that

there was no stipulation that no one other than an Associate Professor could

apply for the post of professor.

Insofar as the contention of the appellant/writ petitioner with reference to the

format used by the 4th respondent for making his application, we refer to the

counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent University in the writ petition,

wherein, it is stated as follows :-

"5. ......................The dispute as to the format adopted by the 4th respondent is of no merit. In fact, the format used by the 4th respondent was also available in the website of the University. Few minor modifications like additional columns for putting "Sl. No.of the Appendix page", "Sl.No.of the post applied for", etc,. were incorporated subsequently and has not altered the basic format of the application prescribed by the University. In case, the 4 th respondent had failed to incorporate credentials as per the revised format, certainly he would have lost marks on that account. Since there was no serious material change to the format and for the reason that the 4th respondent had applied as per the format prevailed in the University, his application was accepted and processed in accordance with law.

We have no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid statements in the affidavit filed

by the Registrar of University. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned

single Judge was justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant/writ

petitioner that the application of the 4th respondent ought to have been

rejected as it was not in accordance with the prescribed format.

5. Insofar as the contention of the appellant/writ petitioner that the

selection committee had manipulated the marks awarded by the screening

committee to exclude the appellant/writ petitioner and select the 4 th

respondent, we are in complete agreement with the finding of the learned

single Judge that the UGC Regulations only speak about the procedure of the

selection committee and does not speak about any procedure to be followed by

the screening committee. The 1st respondent University in its counter-

affidavit filed through its Registrar has a specific case regarding this

allegation of the appellant/writ petitioner, which reads as follows:-

"7. The allegation of tampering on the summary sheet prepared by the Screening and Selection Committees is highly incorrect and malicious. Averments in para 14 are highly incorrect. The corrections were carried out by the Selection Committee/Interview Board within its competency and the Selection Committee members had acknowledged such corrections. The screening by the scrutiny committee is mostly a clerical job with few experts on the field. Wherever the mistakes are noticed, the Selection Committee is competent to correct such mistakes duly acknowledging the same. The initials are seen placed by the Chairman of the Section Committee and the summary score sheet was signed by all the selection committee members. The allegation in para 15 is absolutely incorrect. The petitioner has been granted the marks as per the norms. Only 5 marks are permissible for Ph.D in the relevant subject. The 1 st Ph.D of the petitioner was in Geology and the experts found the same as not relevant for the post of Professor in Environmental Science. However the same had fetched 5 marks for the post of Professor in Geology. The 2nd Ph.D was from a foreign University and to score marks on that account an equivalence certificate from Association of Indian Universities is mandatory. No such certificate was produced. Thus the

petitioner was given eligible marks.

8. The 4th respondent has produced 8 Ph.D and 6 M.Phil. He is also having sufficient teaching experience in the relevant subject. The petitioner herein is a Geologist and is not having experience in the relevant subject. The petitioner had produced only one Ph.D as per his application and was awarded 2 marks on that account. Another student had submitted the thesis but was not awarded with Ph.D. Thus he was granted the eligible marks on that account. The marks given erroneously by the screening committee in violation of the Rules were corrected by the statutory selection committee with respect to all candidates. The score sheet of the 4 th respondent was also corrected taking away the marks awarded by the Screening Committee with due endorsement by the Selection Committee. All the selection committee members had signed the summary score sheet after correcting the mistakes. A true copy of the "Applicant Summary Sheet" of the petitioner and the 4 th respondent to the post of Professor in Environmental Sciences is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(a) and Exhibit R1 (b) respectively."

On a perusal of the 2010 Regulations, we are of the opinion that the procedure

adopted by the selection committee cannot be held as vitiated in any manner.

We are in complete agreement with the finding of the learned single Judge

that the Regulations do not set out any specific procedure to be followed by

the screening committee and in fact, requires the selection committee to make

the final selection. In that view of the matter, we find absolutely no illegality

in the procedure followed by the selection committee. No other point has

been raised.

Resultantly, the Writ Appeal fails and will stand dismissed, confirming

the judgment of the learned single Judge.

sd/-

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd/-

GOPINATH.P JUDGE acd

APPENDIX OF WA 1990/2019

PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FORMAT EARLIER PREVALENT IN THE UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE A2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIBED SUMMARY AND SCORE SHEETS FOR THE POSTS OF PROFESSOR ANNEXURE A2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIBED SUMMARY AND SCORE SHEETS FOR THE POSTS OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ANNEXURE A2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIBED SUMMARY AND SCORES SHEETS FOR THE POSTS OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR.

ANNEXURE A3           TRUE COPIES OF THE ONLINE RTI REQUEST AND
                      INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE RESPONDENT
                      UNIVERSITY
ANNEXURE A4           TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PHD
                      AWARDED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE ANNA
                      UNIVERSITY.