Back
2009 Supreme(Ker) 806
High Court of Kerala
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. GIRI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
Dr. Cyril Johnson
Versus
The State of Kerala & Others
WP(C).No. 33661 & 35595 of 2005 (G)
Decided on : 07-10-2009
A selection committee does not have the inherent jurisdiction to evolve its own norms for selection in the absence of statutory or administrative instructions.
Headnote:
Selection Committee - Powers to Evolve Norms - Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 - [ILR 2007(1) Kerala 244] - The court discussed the powers of the selection committee in evolving norms for a selection to the post of Controller of Examinations in the Kerala University. The Division Bench upheld the power of the selection committee to evolve their own norms in the absence of specific prescription in the statute, contrary to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu v. State of Orissa {1995(6) SCC 1}. The court overruled the decision in Antony P.A. v. Krishnadas M.N. and declared the proceedings of the selection committee and the appointment of the 4th respondent as Controller of Examinations as illegal and vitiated.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the selection of a Controller of Examinations in the Kerala University. The selection committee evolved their own norms for selection, which were not prescribed in the statute or laid down by the appointing authority. The petitioners challenged the selection, alleging bias and unfair criteria adopted by the selection committee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the selection committee's actions were without authority and jurisdiction, and the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent as Controller of Examinations were declared illegal and vitiated. The court directed the Syndicate of the University to evolve norms for selection and conduct a fresh selection within two months.
Issues: The main issue was the competence of the selection committee to evolve and adopt its own criteria for assessing the comparative merits of the candidates. The court also considered the legality of the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent as Controller of Examinations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a selection committee constituted under the statutes should follow the prescribed norms for assessing the merit of candidates, and it does not have the inherent jurisdiction to evolve its own norms in the absence of statutory or administrative instructions. The court overruled the decision in Antony P.A. v. Krishnadas M.N. and declared the proceedings of the selection committee and the appointment of the 4th respondent as illegal and vitiated.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, declared the proceedings of the selection committee and the appointment of the 4th respondent as illegal and vitiated, and directed the Syndicate of the University to evolve norms for selection and conduct a fresh selection within two months.
V. Giri, J.
The point that has been formulated for consideration of this bench is whether Antony P.A. V. Krishnadas M.N. {ILR 2007(1) Kerala 244} lays down the correct legal position concerning the powers of the selection committee in evolving norms for a selection. The issue arises in the context of selection to the post of Controller of Examinations in the Kerala University. The committee is constituted in terms of the provisions of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 and it should consist of the Vice Chancellor and two other Syndicate members. The Controller is to be appointed by the Syndicate of the University on the recommendation of the selection committee. The First Statutes also provide for the powers and duties of the Controller. The Statutes do not specifically provide for the norms that are to be adopted by the Selection Committee. The Syndicate also did not lay down the norms.
Norms were evolved by the selection committee on their own, apparently in the course of conducting the selection and they proceeded to select the 4th respondent. Recommendations of the selection committee were accepted by the Syndicate and the 4th respondent was appointed as Controller of Examinations. This has been called in question in these writ petitions.
2. Learned single Judge, before whom the writ petition came up for consideration, referred to the stand taken by the University in their counter affidavit and observed that the selection committee had evolved their own norms for the selection. It was observed that the committee had arrogated to itself the power of framing the norms for selection. This, the learned Judge observed, was clearly inconsistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu and others v. State of Orissa {1995(6) SCC 1}, wherein the Supreme Court held that the selection committee does not have the inherent jurisdiction to lay down the norms for selection, nor can such power be assumed or inferred by implication. Learned single Judge observed that a contrary view has been taken by a bench of this court in Antony P.A. V. Krishnadas M.N. {ILR 2007 (1) Kerala 244}. The Bench in Antony held that where the selection committee is statutorily constituted, but the statute which provides for the constitution of the selection committee does not, at the same time, lay down any guidelines or norms to regulate the selection, then the committee is entitled to evolve its own norms, which have to be fair and reasonable.
In other words, the Division Bench proceeded to uphold the power of the selection committee to evolve their own norms in the absence of a specific prescription in that regard in the statute, which in the first place had provided for the constitution of the committee. Learned single Judge, after observing that the dictum in Antony was inconsistent with the principle laid down in Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu and others v. State of Orissa {1995(6) SCC 1}, adjourned the writ petitions to be heard by a Division Bench. The Division Bench felt that the matter requires consideration by a Full Bench, so as to avoid conflicting decisions by co-ordinate benches. Accordingly, these cases as such have been referred to a Full Bench and essentially the point for consideration is whether Antony lays down the correct legal position concerning the powers of the selection committee to evolve the norms for selection.
3. Reference to the facts in W.P.(C)No.35595/05, would be comprehensive of W.P.(C) No.33661/05 as well.
4. By Ext.P1 notification dated 25.7.2005, the University of Kerala invited applications for appointment to the post of Controller of Examinations. Copy of the said notification reads as follows:
"The qualifications prescribed are as follows:
"A first or second class Masters Degree or equivalent qualification, about 5 years teaching experience at University level and about 5 years administrative experience in a responsible post, including management of staff in a University or Coll
