The main legal point established in the judgment is that notifications prescribing qualifications and selection norms must be in accordance with the Act and Statutes, and the Selection Committee must adhere to prescribed norms without deviation. The Court emphasized the importance of avoiding arbitrariness and mala fides in the selection process.

Headnote:
Selection and Appointment - Section Officers - Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act - S.31, Statute 7 of Chapter-IV - Ultra vires notifications, arbitrary qualifications, and selection norms - Quashing of selection and appointments
Fact of the Case:

The case involves challenges to the selection and appointment of Section Officers in the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit. The petitioners challenge the notifications inviting applications, qualifications stipulated, and the selection process. The main contentions include the lack of prior sanction from the Government for creating the posts, ultra vires qualifications, and arbitrary selection norms.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the notifications prescribing qualifications and selection norms were ultra vires the Act and Statutes, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The Court also held that the Selection Committee had no jurisdiction to lay down the norms for selection and had deviated from the prescribed norms. The selection process was found to be vitiated by mala fides and illegalities.
Issues: The key issues considered by the Court included the lack of prior sanction for creating the posts, ultra vires qualifications, arbitrary selection norms, deviation from prescribed norms, and allegations of mala fides.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the notifications prescribing qualifications and selection norms were ultra vires the Act and Statutes, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The Selection Committee had no jurisdiction to lay down the norms for selection and had deviated from the prescribed norms. The selection process was found to be vitiated by mala fides and illegalities.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the notifications, rank list, and the selection and appointment of Section Officers in the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit. The Court also directed the University to make suitable amendments to the First Statutes to enable fresh selections without legal flaws.

Judgment :-

S. Siri Jagan, J.

These Writ Petitions relate to the selection and appointment to the post of Section Officers in the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’). In O.P.No.8571/2000, filed immediately after publication of the Notification inviting applications for the post, the petitioner challenges the notification itself as ultra vires the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act and the Statutes made there under. In O.P.No.18462/2000, the petitioners challenge the notification inviting applications as well as the selection and appointment made pursuant to the same after participating in the selection process. In W.P.(C) Nos.25777, 26486, 28932 and 28933 of 2003, the petitioners challenge the select list and in O.P.No.12352/2002, two of the selected candidates challenge the inter se seniority allotted to the selected candidates.

2. By a notification dated 4.12.1999 (Ext.P1 in O.P.No.8571/2000), the University invited applications from qualified Assistants/Section Officers working in the Universities Of Kerala State to the post of Section Officers in the University. The qualifications stipulated in the notification were, (1) University Degree and (2) minimum of 10 years of service. The notification also prescribed an age limit of not below 35 years as on 1.1.1999. By a corrigendum dated 21.2.2000 (Ext.P3 in O.P.N.O.8571/2000), the minimum age limit was deleted. The petitioners in O.P.Nos.8571 and 18462 of 2000 challenge these notifications as ultra vires the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit First Statutes, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Statutes’), in so far as the qualifications stipulated in Exts.P1 and P3 are not those provided in the statutes: The petitioners in O.P.No.18462/2000 have further prayers to quash the appointment of the 20 persons selected (who are respondents 5 to 24 in the said Original Petition) and send them back to the Universities where their lien is retained as also to direct the University not to proceed with the direct recruitment to the post of Section Officers until qualification, experience and age are prescribed in the Statutes or Regulations. In O.P.No.8571/2000, the selection is challenged also on the ground that since the norms for selection were laid down by the Selection Committee which did not have the power to do it, the selection based on such norms is invalid. Allegations of mala fides are also raised particularly on the ground that the age limit was deleted by Ext.P3 only to enable some persons of the choice of the officers of the University to be selected.

3. In W.P.(C) Nos.25777, 26486, 28932 and 28933 of 2003, the petitioners challenge the selection on the ground that after laying down the norms for selection, the Selection Committee deviated from the norms in awarding marks to the candidates and in preparing the rank list of candidates for selection.

4. In O.P.No.12352/2002, two of the selected candidates want reification of the inter se seniority among the selected candidates taking into account their prior service in other Universities and challenges Ext.P5 gradation list therein and further promotions based on the said gradation list.

5. The University has filed counter affidavits in all cases justifying the notifications inviting applications as well as the selection on the basis of decisions of the Syndicate and that of the Selection Committee. The selected candidates, namely, respondents 5 to 24 also filed counter affidavit supporting the selection and the rank list. Counter affidavits have been filed by the University and party respondents in O.P.No.12352/2002 also.

6. I have heard counsel appearing for the petitioners the University and the selected candidates in detail. The University has also made available the files relating to the selection, pursuant to directions issued by this Court in that regard.

7. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document