Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Ker) 25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
Dr.Seena J, D/o Late M.A. Johnson - Appellant
Versus
University Of Calicut Represented By Its Registrar, Calicut University, Thenjippalam, Kerala. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 15144 of 2021
Decided on : 13-01-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Simla Prabhakaran, Mahin Prabhakaran, Babila K.K., K.V.Praveen, Adv
For the Respondent: Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, T.B.Hood, M.Isha, Amal Kasha, Adv.

Point of Law: It is by now settled without any pale of doubt that if a candidate is entitled to be admitted on basis of his own merit then such admission should not be counted against quota reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or any other reserved category since that will be against the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 16(4).

Headnote:
University Act - Section 6 (2) - Post of Assistant Professor in Journalism - Reservation - Seeking to quash minutes of Syndicate Committee, resolving to appoint 4th respondent and also consequential order passed by 1st respondent - Seeking direction to 1st Respondent University to revoke appointment of Respondent No.4 in post of Assistant Professor (Journalism) in Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Calicut University - Petitioner being a person eminently qualified for post put in her application as a candidate in General Category and took part in the interview - Rank List published on website of University which reveals that she was ranked No.3. According to petitioner, 4th respondent is a Muslim Reservation Candidate and he is seen to have been placed as Rank No.1 in Rank List.
Finding of the Court :
Court find from extract of minutes of the syndicate committee that Syndicate considered recommendation of Selection committee for post of Assistant Professor (Permanent) in Department of Journalism and resolved to approve the recommendations of selection committee and to approve the rank list for post of Assistant Professor and to appoint the 4th respondent in the post of Assistant Professor. In that view of matter, 2nd contention raised by petitioner also cannot be sustained - 4th respondent was informed that he has been selected for appointment as Assistant Professor in Department of Journalism and Mass Communication against a permanent open vacancy and by a memo sent by email, he was asked to report before registrar within a period of 15 days. The 4th respondent joined duty with effect from FN. There could have been some delay in publishing the rank list in official website and in facts and circumstances, court don’t find that the same is a pertinent enough reason to unsettle the appointment granted to the 4th respondent.
Result: Writ petition is dismissed

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The case involves a dispute over the appointment of a candidate, the 4th respondent, as Assistant Professor in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication at Calicut University, and whether his appointment was proper and in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations (!) (!) .
The petitioner, who was ranked No.3 in the merit list and is an open category candidate, challenges the appointment of the 4th respondent, who is a Muslim reservation candidate ranked No.1, alleging that the appointment was fraudulent and that the candidate was appointed in a manner contrary to reservation rules and transparency requirements (!) (!) .
The petitioner contends that the 4th respondent was selected not solely on his merit but because of his reservation category, and that he was appointed in an objectionable manner, prior to the official publication of the rank list, which suggests pre-determined selection and possible fraud (!) .
The respondents argue that the 4th respondent was selected based on merit, as he was first in the merit list, and that the appointment was made following proper procedures, including approval by the syndicate and communication to the candidate before the official publication of the rank list (!) (!) (!) .
The court examined the procedures followed, including the consideration of recommendations by the selection committee, approval by the syndicate, and the timing of the appointment relative to the publication of the rank list, and found that the appointment was made in accordance with the merit-based process and rules (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that candidates who are eligible on merit should not be counted against reserved categories, in line with constitutional principles, and that the reservation system allows candidates to be selected on merit even within reservation categories, without affecting the general merit list [judgement_subject].
The court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that the appointment was unlawful or fraudulent, and that the delay in publishing the rank list did not invalidate the appointment. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the appointment of the 4th respondent was upheld (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.

JUDGMENT :

The 4th respondent, Dr. Nuaiman K.A was appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Journalism) in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Calicut University. The petitioner, an aspirant to the very same post, seeks to quash Exhibit P3 minutes of the Syndicate Committee, resolving to appoint the 4th respondent and also Exhibit P4 consequential order passed by the 1st respondent.

2. The brief facts are as under:

Applications were invited to the Post of Assistant Professor in Journalism pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification issued by the 3rd respondent. Two vacancies were notified for the post of Assistant Professor (Journalism) and it was mentioned therein that the appointment would be made from the rank list itself. The petitioner being a person eminently qualified for the post put in her application as a candidate in the General Category and took part in the interview. Exhibit P2 is the Rank List published on the website of the University which reveals that she was ranked No.3. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is a Muslim Reservation Candidate and he is seen to have been placed as Rank No.1 in Exhibit P2 Rank List. It is contended that as per the reservation roster, the post had to be given to a General Candidate and not to a Muslim Reservation Candidate. The syndicate meeting held on 30.1.2021 resolved to appoint the 4th respondent against the open (permanent) vacancy based on the recommendations of the Select Committee and Exhibit P3 is the copy of the minutes. The Rank List was published in the web site of the University only on 4.2.2021. However, much prior to the said date, the 4th respondent signed on the attendance register. This would amply demonstrate that the 4th respondent is a predetermined candidate and his appointment was carried out in an objectionable and fraudulent manner. As the petitioner was placed No.3 in the Rank List and as she is an open category candidate, she should have been given appointment instead of the 4th respondent. It is stated that the appointment was not made in a transparent manner and in clear violation of the UGC guidelines and Regulations. Though the petitioner requested the University to furnish her the details of the marklist of the candidates, the same was denied. It is on these allegations that this Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash item 2021.112 dated 31.01.2021 in Exhibit P-3 minutes and Exhibit P-4 order passed by the 1st Respondent University Syndicate and consequential appointment of Respondent No.4 in the post of Assistant Professor (Journalism) in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Calicut University.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st Respondent University to revoke the appointment of Respondent No.4 in the post of Assistant Professor (Journalism) in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Calicut University.

iii. Declare that the selection and appointment of Respondent No.4 in the post of Assistant Professor (Journalism) in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Calicut University is null and void.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was an applicant to the post of Assistant Professor in Journalism pursuant to a notification issued by the University. After a due process of selection, the rank list was published on 31.12.2019. The petitioner herein was included as Serial No.3 in the Rank List. It is contended that a duly constituted Selection Committee conducted the interview and the Rank List was prepared purely based on merit. According to the respondents, as per Section 6 (2) of the University Act, the appointment of Assistant Professor in the Universities is to be made by clubbing together all the teaching departments as one unit for the purpose

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Ker) 25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMRAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.Dr.Seena J, D/o Late M.A. Johnson - AppellantVersusUniversity Of Calicut Represented By Its Registrar, Calicut University, Thenjippalam, Kerala. - RespondentWP(C) No. 15144 of 2021Decided on : 13-01-2022

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
Dr.Seena J, D/o Late M.A. Johnson - Appellant
Versus
University Of Calicut Represented By Its Registrar, Calicut University, Thenjippalam, Kerala. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 15144 of 2021
Decided on : 13-01-2022