The court emphasized the importance of expert academic bodies' assessments in determining qualifications and held that the petitioner's challenge did not warrant interference under Art.226.

1. By Ext. P1 notification dated 1-3-1982 the Kerala University invited applications from qualified candidates for appointment to the post of Reader in Chemistry. The petitioner and the 4th respondent applied; and the Selection Committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor, a Syndicate member, two experts from outside and the Professor of Chemistry (id the Kerala University) selected the 4th respondent for the post. The petitioner challenges this selection on the ground that the 4th respondent was not sufficiently qualified for being considered, either at the time the notification was issued or at the time the selection was made.

2. Under the Regulations framed by the Academic Council of the University, a person could be appointed as Reader in Science only if he possesses the following qualifications:

(i) A First Class Master's Degree or a Second Class Master's Degree with not less than 50% marks of an Indian University or an equivalent qualification of a foreign University in the Subject concerned;

(ii) Either a research degree of a Doctorate standard or published work of a high standard;

and (iii) About five years' experience of teaching at a University or College and some experience of guiding research.

The petitioner had taken his M. Sc. in 1973 and Ph. D. in 1977; and from July, 1977 he was working as Lecturer in Chemistry in the University of Cochin. He had also earlier worked as Junior Lecturer in some colleges for about six months. Thus, he had admittedly "five years' experience of teaching". The 4th respondent had taken his M.Sc. in 1971 and Ph D. in 1976. He had commenced service as a Lecturer only from November, 1978. If teaching experience were to be equated to the period of service rendered as a teacher, he had not obviously completed the required period before the crucial date. According to the petitioner, "experience of teaching" could only mean experience as a competently appointed teacher, and as the 4th respondent's qualification was deficient in this respect, he was ineligible to be considered or selected.

3. The stand of the University is that the 4th respondent had acquired experience in teaching for about 3 years while undergoing advanced studies for Senior Research Fellowship under a programme of the U.G.C., and that this could also be added to his experience as a Lecturer, for the purposes of the Regulations. In a sense, therefore, the question is whether mere participation in teaching work as part of the programme for post-doctoral research could be regarded as "experience of teaching at a University or college".

4. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision reported in Balaraman v. Chancellor (1979 KLT. 825). S.17 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 provided for the constitution of the Senate so as to include elected representatives of principals, teachers, local authorities, trade unions, non-teaching staff and other distinct classes of people. S.18(3) provided that such members of the Senate were to hold office until it's "next reconstitution". But the first proviso to the sub-section had also stipulated as follows:

"Provided that no member nominated or elected in his capacity as a member of a particular body or as the holder of a particular office shall hold office for a longer period than three months after he has ceased to be such member or holder of such office, unless in the meanwhile he again becomes a member of that electorate."

Balaraman was a teacher of a private college and he was elected to the Senate in 1975 from the constituency of private teachers. From 1-9-1977 to 38-8-1978, he was deputed to qualify himself as a fellow in M. Phil., and his contention was that despite the deputation as a student for M.Phil, he was eligible to continue as a Senate member, representing private teachers. This contention was rejected by the Court on the ground that taking into account the antithesis between ‘teacher' and 'student' as defined in S.2 of the Act, the petitioner had ceased to hold of