SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Ker) 377

Judges : K.M.JOSEPH
Dr.V.P.Mahadevan Pillai - Appellant
Versus
University of Kerala, Represented by Its Registrar - Respondent
Case No : W.P.(C).No.10527 of 2004 (C)
Decided On : 06/27/2005
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner: C.P. Sudhakara Prasad (SR.), Elvin Peter P.J. Advocates. For the Respondents: M.K. Chandramohan Das, SC, Kerala Uty, R2, K.P. Dandapani, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application of reservation principles to a Single Post Cadre is impermissible, and the rejection of an application by an improperly constituted Screening Committee is illegal and arbitrary.

Headnote:

University of Kerala - Professor Appointment - KS&SSR Rules 14 to 17 - The court found that the post in question is a Single Post Cadre and the application of reservation principles to a Single Post Cadre was impermissible. The court also held that the rejection of the petitioner's application by the Screening Committee was illegal and arbitrary. The court quashed the rejection orders and declared the reservation of the post to a specific community as illegal and void ab initio.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied for the post of Professor in the Department of Opto-Electronics at the University of Kerala. His application was rejected by the Screening Committee, and he challenged the rejection, also seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the reservation of the post to a specific community as illegal, unconstitutional, and void ab initio.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the post in question is a Single Post Cadre and the application of reservation principles to a Single Post Cadre was impermissible. The court also held that the rejection of the petitioner's application by the Screening Committee was illegal and arbitrary. The court quashed the rejection orders and declared the reservation of the post to a specific community as illegal and void ab initio.

Issues: The principal contentions raised by the petitioner were related to the impermissibility of reservation in a Single Post Cadre and the illegal constitution of the Screening Committee.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the post in question is a Single Post Cadre, and the application of reservation principles to a Single Post Cadre was impermissible. The court also found that the rejection of the petitioner's application by the Screening Committee was illegal and arbitrary due to the improper constitution of the committee.

Final Decision: The court quashed the rejection orders and declared the reservation of the post to a specific community as illegal, unconstitutional, and void ab initio. The University was directed to fill up the post without reserving it for any community.

Judgment :-

By Exhibit P1 dated 3.10.2002 the University of Kerala issued a Notification calling for applications for various posts including the post of Professor in the Department of Opto-Electronics. The qualifications prescribed for the said post is as follows:

“An eminent Scholar with published work of high quality actively engaged in research in a relevant field with 10 years experience in post graduate teaching and/or research at the University/Industrial R & D/National Level Institutions including experience in guiding research at doctorate level

or

An outstanding scholar in a relevant field with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge.â€

2. Petitioner made his application (Exhibit P2) along with necessary documents. According to the petitioner he is qualified to hold the post of Professor in Opto-Electronics. He has passed M.Sc. Physics with First Class M.Phil. securing ‘A’ Grade in Physics with First Class, M. Phil securing ‘A’ Grade in Physics and Ph.D in Physics in Laser Raman Spectroscopy. He was also awarded Ph.D. Degree in the examination held in 1996 (Exhibit P4). Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Physics in St. Gregorious College, Kottarakkara on 1.10.1982. Thereafter he was appointed as Reader in Physics in the said college on 24.10.1996. He has got Post Graduate Teaching experience in Physics from 1999-2000 onwards. Thus the petitioner has got 18 and ½ years teaching experience including two years Post Graduate Teaching experience in St. Gregorious College, Kottarakkara and it was with that experience he was appointed as Lecturer in Opto-Electronics in the University of Kerala on 17.5.2001. From 1.6.2001 onwards he was working as Head of the Department of Opto-Electronics. He would say that he started research work in Physics from 1991 when undergoing M.Phil course. Petitioner would contend that after completing the M.Phil Course in 1992 he was registered as a Research Scholar by the University for doing Ph.D on 4.3.2002. He would contend that while doing Ph.D and after obtaining Ph.D. also, he was continuing his research work in the field of Opto-Electronics and he had got more than 12 years research experience at the time when he submitted his application besides the 3 and ½ years Post Graduate Teaching experience. He would contend that he was a known Scholar in Opto-Electronics. Petitioner has produced Exhibits P7 and P8 to show that the petitioner had contributed research papers in the Journals in 1991 and 1992. He would say that excepting him no other applicant was a research guide which was recognized by the University from 2001 onwards.

3. The application of the petitioner came to be rejected vide Exhibit P10 dated 24.3.2003. It is stated therein that a Certificate showing 10 years of Post Graduate Training or research experience is not produced by him. By Exhibit P11 dated 8.4.2003, he represented before the Registrar inter alia stating that he had 12 years research experience at the University level as is evident from the fact that he has published papers from 1991 upto the date of application. A certificate from the Supervising Teacher for M.Phil Project and Ph.D. thesis was also produced. It is also stated in Exhibit P11 that in Exhibit P1 Notification it is not mentioned that research experience should be after Ph.D. Degree. Exhibit P11(a) is the Certificate issued by Dr. V. Unnikrishnan Nayar, Professor and Head of the Department of Opto-Electronics certifying that the petitioner has been doing research from 1990-91 academic year as a student of M.Phil Degree course of the Physics Department, that the petitioner started the research work in 1991 and published his first research paper in Journal of Raman Spectroscopy 22, 1991, 287-89, that he published another paper in 1992 in the same journal, 23, 1992, 235-37, that the petitioner got his M.Phil Degree in 1992 and continued his research for Ph.D. Degree which he obtained in 1996 that even after













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top