Kerala High Court
Nasafi Rahman M vs Cochin University Of Science And ... on 3 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 14TH MAGHA, 1944
WA NO. 1500 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26186/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
NASAFI RAHMAN M., AGED 34 YEARS
S/O MUJEEB RAHMAN, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT
NO. 709, BUILDING NO. 278, WAY NO. 1063, A1 WADI
AL KABIR, MUSCAT, OMAN HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS
AT VAILITHARA, PANOOR, PALLANA POST,
THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, 690515,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
IJLAL C., ADVOCATE, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED,
CHATHOLI HOUSE, THUVVUR, POST, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, KERALA - 679327.
BY ADVS.
UMMUL FIDA
NIMMY JOHNSON
K.M.FIROZ(K/1714/2000)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(CUSAT)
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI - 682022 , REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2 VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY (CUSAT), COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682022.
3 DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(CUSAT), COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI - 682022, REPRESENTED BY THE HEAD OF THE
DEPARTMENT.
Writ Appeal No.1500 of 2022 -: 2 :-
4 DR. ASIF.E., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR(LAW),
NUALS, NAD ROAD, HMT COLONY, NORTH KALAMASSERY,
KALAMASSERY, KOCHI, KERALA - 683503.
BY ADVS.
S. P. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
M.H.ASIF ALI
S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF(K/000647/1990)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Writ Appeal No.1500 of 2022 -: 3 :-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
Writ Appeal No.1500 of 2022
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2023
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated
31.08.2022 in W.P.(C) No.26186 of 2022. The appellant is the
petitioner in the writ petition. The matter relates to the
selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in
Constitutional Law/Maritime Law in the Cochin University of
Science and Technology (the University).
2. Applications were invited by the University
from qualified candidates for appointment to the post of
Assistant Professor in Constitutional Law/Maritime Law against
a vacancy reserved for candidates belonging to Muslim
Community. Ext.P4 is the notification issued by the University
in this regard. The minimum qualification prescribed in the
notification for selection is Master's degree with 55% marks in
the relevant subject. The appellant who holds a Master's
degree in Constitutional Law and Maritime Law with the
requisite marks, applied for selection pursuant to the
notification. The fourth respondent who holds a Master's
degree in Public Law and Intellectual Property Rights with
requisite marks also applied for the said selection. The
selection was based on the performance of the candidates in
the interview. Ext.P9 is the ranked list of the candidates
shortlisted for appointment. In Ext.P9, the fourth respondent
was assigned first rank and the appellant was assigned second
rank. The appellant challenged the selection of the fourth
respondent in the writ petition on the mainly ground that the
fourth respondent who does not have a Master's degree either
in Constitutional Law or in Maritime Law is not qualified in
terms of the applicable Regulations of the University Grants
Commission (the UGC Regulations) and that only candidates
who possess a Master's degree in Constitutional Law or in
Maritime Law are eligible to be considered for selection as per
the UGC Regulations. It was alleged by the appellant in the writ
petition that the fourth respondent has neither studied
Maritime Law nor Constitutional Law at the post-graduate level
and instead, he studied only some aspects of Constitutional
Law as part of the curriculum at the post-graduate level while
studying Public Law. The writ petition was disposed of by the
learned Single Judge at the admission stage itself directing the
University to verify the process adopted by the Selection
Committee and ascertain whether it has been done correctly,
after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant
as also to the fourth respondent. The appellant is aggrieved by
the said decision of the learned Single Judge and hence, this
appeal.
3. Insofar as the writ petition was disposed of at
the admission stage, both the University as also the fourth
respondent filed their counter-affidavits in the writ appeal.
4. The stand taken by the University in their
counter-affidavit is that the committee constituted by the
University for scrutiny of the applications consisting of eminent
academicians including experts in the field of law found the
fourth respondent qualified to be considered for selection as he
has studied as part of his curriculum at the post graduate level
Constitutional Principles, Constitutional Structure,
Constitutional Rights and Social Justice, Judicial Review of
Legislation and Constitutional Amendments, Law of Elections
and Democratic Decentralisation and Judicial Review of
Administrative Action, which are closely related to
Constitutional Law. The fourth respondent in his counter-
affidavit takes the stand that the requirement in terms of the
UGC Regulations followed in the selection process is only that
the candidates should hold a Master's degree in 'a' relevant
subject and it is not necessary that the Master's degree shall
be in 'the' relevant subject.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant,
the learned Standing Counsel for the University and the
learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant
persuasively argued that the stand taken by the University that
it is not necessary for a person to hold either a Master's degree
in Constitutional Law or in Maritime Law to teach the said
subjects and that a person who has studied some aspects of
Constitutional Law can teach Constitutional Law and Maritime
Law in the University, is absurd. According to the learned
counsel, in the absence of the article "a" preceding the words
"relevant subject" in the notification, the same has to be
understood as insisting a Master's degree in either
Constitutional Law or Maritime Law, for being considered for
selection. The learned counsel has also made elaborate
submissions to bring home the point that the fourth
respondent has not studied all aspects of Constitutional Law as
is normally taught at the post-graduate level but only a few
aspects of the same while pursuing his L.L.M course in Public
Law. According to the learned counsel, such a candidate
cannot be said to be qualified for selection. It was also argued
by the learned counsel that there is no difficulty in accepting
the broad proposition that academic issues must be left to be
decided by expert bodies and the court cannot act as an
appellate authority in such matters. But it was argued by the
learned counsel, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex
Court in Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v.
Gulbarga University, (2014) 3 SCC 767 that the said
proposition cannot be understood to hold that the opinion of
expert bodies deserve to be accepted under all circumstances
and that the same is not subject to judicial review. According to
the learned counsel, such a broad proposition will have very
serious consequences and the courts can, in appropriate cases,
examine the correctness of the decision taken by such bodies.
It was argued by the learned counsel that the case on hand is
an appropriate case where the court can examine the
correctness of the decision taken by the academic body which
entertained the application of the fourth respondent as the
subject involved is not alien to the court.
7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for
the University asserted that the minimum qualification
prescribed for selection is only a Master's Degree in "relevant
subject" and the decision taken by the the Scrutiny Committee
on an evaluation of the materials before it that the fourth
respondent holds Master's Degree in a relevant subject cannot
be questioned in a proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution, especially when there are no allegations of malice
against the academicians in the Scrutiny Committee. The
learned Standing Counsel for the University has also relied on a
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gijo Ittoop (Dr.)
v. Kerala University of Fisheries, 2018 (4) KHC 285, in
support of the proposition argued by him. The learned counsel
for the fourth respondent supported the arguments advanced
by the learned Standing Counsel for the University, relying on
the decision of the Apex Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke
v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SCC 434.
8. We have bestowed our attention to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The relevant portion of the applicable UGC
Regulations was produced by the fourth respondent along with
the counter-affidavit filed by him as Annexure R4(b). The
relevant portion of Annexure R4(b) dealing with the eligibility
criteria fixed for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor
reads thus:
"A Master's degree with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a
point-scale wherever the grading system is followed) in a
concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University, or an
equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university."
In Ext.P4 notification, though it is stated that the
subject/specialisation required for the post advertised is
Constitutional Law/Maritime Law, the prescription as regards
the minimum qualification was as follows:
"Master's Degree with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a
point-scale wherever the grading System is followed) in relevant
subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from
an accredited foreign university."
As evident from the extracted provisions, the requirement
under the UGC Regulations as regards minimum qualification is
a Master's degree with 55% marks in a concerned or relevant
or allied subject, whereas the requirement under the
notification as regards the minimum qualification is a Master's
degree with 55% marks in relevant subject. Although the
article 'a' is not there in the notification preceding the word
'relevant', insofar as it is the common case of the parties that
the selection process is governed by the UGC Regulations, the
word 'relevant' in the notification has to be understood with
the article 'a' preceding the same. It is settled law that if the
prescription is that the qualification shall be in 'the' relevant
subject, then the qualification shall only be in that subject and
if the prescription is that the qualification shall be in 'a'
relevant subject, the qualification shall be on other subjects as
well, which are relevant. It is so held by this Court in Gijo
Ittoop (Dr.). Needless to say, a Master's degree in a relevant
subject need not be a Master's degree in the relevant subject.
In other words, the notification does not insist a Master's
degree either in Constitutional Law or in Maritime Law. On the
other hand, the notification insists only a Master's degree in a
relevant subject.
10. What remains to be considered is the question
whether the fourth respondent holds a Master's degree in a
relevant subject. As noted, the Scrutiny Committee consisting
of academicians in the field of law has found that the Master's
degree of the fourth respondent is in a relevant subject.
Ordinarily, the question whether a particular subject is relevant
with the concerned subject is a matter of academic issue which
can be decided only by the academicians and not by the Court.
In this context, it is worth referring to the judgment of the Apex
Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke. Paragraph 9 of the
judgment in the said case reads thus:
"9. It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High
Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though
their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the
Court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the
decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon
deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to
emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals
over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize
the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit
for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly
constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the
subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the
Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited
grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the
constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the
selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is
not disputed that in the present case the University had
constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant
statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the
candidates after going through all the relevant material before it.
In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it
aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the
candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong
and exceeded its Jurisdiction." (underline supplied)
Reverting to the facts, in the absence of any allegation of
malice, according to us, this Court is bound to respect the
decision taken by the Committee which scrutinised the
applications consisting of expert academicians, that the
subject on which the fourth respondent holds a Master's
degree is relevant, even though the view that one who has
studied only some aspects of Constitutional Law can also teach
Constitutional Law and Maritime Law, appears to us to be
slightly illogical. Anyhow, it is unnecessary for us to delve deep
into that aspect, in the absence of any challenge to the
prescription as regards the minimum qualifications contained
in the UGC Regulations as also in the absence of any
allegations of mala fide against the members of the Committee
which scrutinised the applications. Needless to say, the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant
are only to be rejected.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, we do not find
any reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single
Judge. The writ appeal, in the circumstances, is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE.
ds 31.01.2023
APPENDIX OF WA 1500/2022
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R4(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE COURSE DETAILS OF
LLM PROGRAMME OF UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
Annexure R4(b) A true copy of the relevant portions
of the UGC Regulations 2018
Annexure R4(c) A true copy of the Certificate dt.
01.06.2012 issued by the University of
Kerala
Annexure R4(d) A true copy of the NET qualification
certificate dt. 16.12.2011 issued to
the 4th respondent by the UGC
Annexure R4(e) A true copy of the JRF award letter dt
23.03.2012 issued to the 4th
respondent by the UGC
Annexure R4(f) A true copy of the PhD certificate dt.
31.05.2018 issued by the University of
Kerala
Annexure-R1(a) A true copy of the minutes of the
Scrutiny Committee constituted to
scrutinise the applications received
for the post Sl.No.2-Assistant
Professor-Constitutional Law/Maritime
Law (Muslim) in School of Legal
Studies
Annexure-R1(b) A true copy of the mark list of the
4th respondent
