Back
2022 Supreme(Ker) 638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. Suresh Kumar, C.S. Sudha, JJ.
Manager, Malankara Syrian Catholic Colleges and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Dr.Reshmi P.R. and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos.236, 271 and 491 of 2021
Decided On : 25-08-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Santhosh Mathew, Sri.Arun Thomas, Sri.Jennis Stephen, Sri.Vijay V. Paul, Smt.Karthika Maria, Sri. Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Smt.Divya Sara George, Smt.Jaisy Elza Joe, Shri. Abi Benny Areeckal, Smt. Leah Rachel Ninan
For the Respondent: Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj(B/O), Sri. Thomas Abraham, SC, University Of Kerala, Sri. A.J.Varghese, Sr.Government Pleader
Point of Law : Doctrine “no man can be a Judge in his own cause” can be applied only to cases where person concerned has a personal interest or has himself already done some act or taken a decision in the matter concerned.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Selection process - Post of Assistant Professor - Power of High court to issue writs - Principle of estoppel - Whether there was reasonable likelihood of bias in selection process - It is no doubt true that the principle of estoppel which prevents a candidate from challenging the selection process after having failed in it, has been reiterated in a plethora of judgments by the Apex Court(Para 25).
Finding of the court :
Person who challenges the selection process on ground that one of the members of the Selection Committee is closely associated with the successful candidate, has no qualms when it comes to her own case when it is pointed out that one of the members of the Selection Committee, i.e., the additional 11th respondent is known to her and has issued her character certificate as well as the certificate of experience. Had the petitioner been successful, probably the 9th respondent would have also raised a similar contention of bias and favoritism. The materials on record do not make out a case of bias or much less a likelihood of bias.
Results : Writ Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
C.S.Sudha, J.
These writ appeals are against the judgment dated 18/12/2020 in W.P. (C)No.15666/2020. W.A.No.271/2021 has been filed by the petitioner; W.A.No.236/2021 by respondents 5 to 8, additional respondents 10 to 13, 15 and 16 and W.A.No.491/2021 by the 9th respondent in the writ petition. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the writ petition.
2. The writ petition has been filed by the unsuccessful candidate to the post of Assistant Professor, St.Johns College, Anchal, Kollam. The 9th respondent is the successful candidate. Respondents 5 and 6 are the Manager and the Principal respectively of the aforesaid college. The 7th respondent is the Chairman of the Selection Committee and the additional 8th respondent and additional respondents 10 to 15 are the members of the Selection Committee. According to the petitioner, the Selection Committee has not awarded the actual marks due to her. On the other hand, she was intentionally awarded quite low marks with the deliberate intention to achieve their object of appointing the 9th respondent. The selection process was vitiated by bias and favoritism. Exts.P6 and P7 documents evidence the close relation of the 9th respondent with a member of the Selection Committee, namely, the 8th respondent. Aggrieved by the denial of employment, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P5 representation to the Registrar, University of Kerala, i.e., the 4th respondent. As the selection process is vitiated by bias and favoritism, the writ petition seeking a declaration that the selection and appointment of the 9th respondent as Assistant Professor, Environmental Science pursuant to the notification issued on 06/07/2019, is unconstitutional, illegal and non-est in the eye of law. Hence for quashing his selection and appointment and for directing the respondents to award fair marks to the petitioner in the interview and also to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor, Environmental Science in the college of respondents 5 and 6.
3. Respondents 5 to 8, additional respondents 10 to 13, additional respondents 15 and 16 as well as the 9th respondent have filed counter affidavits denying the allegation of bias and favoritism, the details of which will be referred to as and when the arguments and counter arguments of either side are considered.
4. The learned Single Judge on the basis of Exts.P7 to P9, found the allegation of the petitioner to be justified and held that the selection of the 9th respondent is vitiated in law and totally unconstitutional and so set aside the same. It was further held that the order would not give any preferential right to the petitioner to seek appointment. The respondents were given the liberty to advertise afresh for the post. It was also held that the respondents are not precluded from creating one more post in case they find the petitioner eligible, keeping in view the fact that the 9th respondent has crossed the age of 40.
5. The petitioner aggrieved by the fact that prayer (iii) in the writ petition, namely, directing the respondents to award fair marks in the interview and to appoint her to the post, has not been allowed in spite of the appointment of the 9th respondent being set aside, has filed W.A.No.271/2021. The 9th respondent has filed W.A.No.491/2021 aggrieved by the impugned judgment setting aside his appointment. W.A.No.236/2021 has been filed by the aforesaid respondents aggrieved by the findings of the learned Single Judge that the appointment of the 9th respondent is vitiated in law and unconstitutional.
6. Heard the learned counsel for all the parties.
7. The petitioner challenges the selection process on two grounds, namely, (i) nepotism/favoritism on the part of the members of the Selection Committee and (ii) Ext.P7 recommendation letter from Father Samuel Varghese Paravila, Vicar, St. Thomas Malankara Cat
