Point of Law: Under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction, and the exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.1.2021 in W.P. (C) No. 8647 of 2020. The appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in the writ petition.

2. The matter relates to the selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Philosophy in the University of Kerala (the University). In terms of Ext.P1 notification, the University invited applications from eligible and qualified candidates for appointment against the sole vacancy. The qualifications required were as prescribed by the University Grants Commission (the UGC) in 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, 2010 (the Regulations). It was specified in the notification that besides fulfilling the qualifications, the candidates must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET). It was, however, clarified that candidates who are, or have been awarded a Ph.D degree in accordance with the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedures for Award of Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009 shall be exempted from the requirement of NET. But, it was stated in Clause 5(ii) of Ext.P1 notification that in order for a Ph.D degree to be considered for exemption from the requirement of NET, those candidates who had registered for Ph.D prior to 11th July, 2009 shall produce along with the application, a certificate from the Vice Chancellor/Pro-Vice Chancellor/Dean (Academic Affairs)/Dean (University Instructions) of the University to the effect that the Ph.D has been awarded fulfilling the following conditions: (a) that Ph.D degree has been awarded to the candidate in regular mode only, (b) that evaluation of the Ph.D thesis has been made by at least two external examiners, (c) that open Ph.D. viva-voce of the candidate had been conducted, (d) that the candidate has published two research papers from his/her Ph.D. work out of which at least one must be in a referred journal and (e) that the candidate has made at least two presentations in conferences/ seminars, based on his/her Ph.D work.

3. As per the norms prevailing then, a maximum of 50 marks was prescribed for ‘Academic Record and Research Performance’ a maximum of 30 marks was prescribed for ‘Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills’ and a maximum of 20 marks was prescribed for performance in the interview. Out of the 50 marks prescribed for ‘Academic Record and Research Performance’ a maximum of 20 marks was prescribed again for publications in journals/books with ISSN (International Standard Serial Number)/ISBN (International Standard Book Number).

4. The petitioner and the second respondent applied for selection pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. Between them, the petitioner was awarded 45 marks including 10 marks for the interview and the second respondent was awarded 55 marks including 18 marks for the interview and consequently, the second respondent was appointed against the vacancy notified. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to 68 marks in the place of 45 marks awarded to him and he should have, therefore, been selected for appointment in the place of the second respondent. He elaborates the said case pointing out that he should have been awarded 20 marks in the place of 4, for publications in journals and for publication of books, 2 marks for the Fellowship of Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 3 marks for Paper Presentation in Seminar/Conferences and 2 marks for teaching experience. That apart, it was also alleged by the petitioner that the second respondent who has not cleared NET was not eligible to participate in the selection process. The petitioner concedes that the second respondent holds a Ph.D Degree, but according to him, the second respondent is not entitled to exemption from the requirement of NET