Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B.Suresh Kumar, C.S. Sudha, JJ.
Dr.Smitha Chacko – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education And Ors. – Respondents
WA NO. 287 of 2022
Decided On : 01-09-2022
Writ Appeal against judgment - Selection processes - Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff - Whether criteria fixed for assessment of the performance of the candidates in interview is in conformity with the UGC Regulations - University does not dispute fact that the selection in case on hand was one to be made in accordance with UGC Regulations, proposition aforesaid, according to us, have no application to the facts of the case. (Para 30).
Finding of the court :
On a query from the court, it was conceded by the learned standing counsel for the University that Annexure A1 order was issued only for the purpose of correcting a few clerical errors in Ext.P7 order. In other words, it is not a case where directions contained in Ext.P7 University Order were altered in Annexure A1 order. As noted, the question in the case is as to whether the selection conducted based on the criteria fixed in terms of Ext.P7 order is sustainable in law. In so far as selection was attacked on the ground that the criteria were unsustainable in law, it was not necessary for the petitioner to raise a challenge against Ext.P7 order, as the sustainability of said ground can be examined even otherwise. In the said view of the matter, Courts do not think that it is necessary for petitioner to challenge Annexure A1 order - Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the eighth respondent is that petitioner has not made out a case of prejudice. Courts are unable to agree. Insofar it was found that Ext.P7 University Order is not one issued in conformity with the Regulations, petitioner is certainly put to prejudice inasmuch as possibility of the petitioner securing more marks in assessment of teaching ability and research aptitude in interview, had the norms been in accordance with Regulations, cannot be ruled out.
Results : Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.
This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.12.2021 in W.P.(C) No.28283 of 2021. The appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition. The matter relates to the selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi in the colleges under the fourth respondent affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University (the University).
2. Ext.P4 is the notification issued by the fourth respondent in connection with the selection. The vacancy notified was one. The selection was in accordance with the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (the Regulations) issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) in accordance with the University Grants Commission Act. In terms of the Regulations, the candidates shall be short-listed as provided for therein and the selection shall be made based on the performance of the candidates in the interview. The Regulations though state that the overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on the weightage given to the performance of the candidate in different relevant parameters based on Tables 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4 and 5 of Appendix II, it permits the University to adopt the selection procedure through their respective statutory bodies incorporating Tables 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4 and 5 of Appendix II at the institutional level to be followed transparently in all the selection processes.
3. In terms of the notification, the candidates were required to submit applications in the prescribed form disclosing their credentials. The applicants were also directed to indicate the score claimed by them for the various parameters prescribed for short-listing as contained in Table 3B of Appendix II. In the tabular form prescribed for the said purpose, it was indicated that the maximum marks for the interview would be 20. It is seen that the said tabular form was later modified by the University in terms of U.O.No.2999/ACL/2021/MGU dated 30.06.2021. Even in the tabular form introduced in terms of the said order, the maximum marks to be awarded for the interview was fixed as 20. The petitioner as also the eighth respondent applied for selection pursuant to Ext.P4 notification. Ext.P5 is the application submitted by the petitioner on 30.05.2021. The petitioner was issued a communication by the fourth respondent on 16.10.2021 directing her to appear for the interview scheduled on 16.11.2021. Ext.P6 is the said communication. Later on 30.10.2021, the University issued Ext.P7 University Order raising the marks to be awarded for the interview to 50 from 20, in modification of U.O.No.2999/ACL/2021/MGU dated 30.06.2021. The split up of the marks to be awarded for the interview are also shown in Ext.P7 University Order, criterion-wise. In terms of Ext.P7, the marks to be awarded for teaching aptitude is 10, for research aptitude is 20, for domain knowledge is 10, for presentation/communication/discussion skills is 5 and for innovative teaching skills is 5. The interview for the subject selection was conducted in accordance with Ext.P7 University Order and the eighth respondent was selected for appointment against the vacancy notified. Pursuant to the selection, the eighth respondent was appointed and she is working as Assistant Professor in Hindi in Catholicate College, Pathanamthitta under the fourth respondent.
4. The writ petition was instituted challenging Ext.P7 University Order issued by the University as also the selection and appointment of the eighth respondent made as provided for in Ext.P7 University Order. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition was that the requirements contained in the Re
Point of Law : Courts shall not enter into arenas which are reserved exclusively for academic experts and bodies and shall not substitute its wisdom for that of wisdom of the experts.
Judicial review of selection processes for public employment is limited; courts should not interfere unless there are proven irregularities or mala fides.
The approval of maximum marks of the interview by the Government subsequent to the selection fulfilled the condition of Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2015, and the selection was held in accordance with t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of University Grants Commission regulations on the university's admission procedure, emphasizing the importance of following the....
Interview-only selection valid for senior academic posts if compliant with per-vacancy screening rules; uniform expert evaluation indicates consensus, not bias.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
