Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
Dr. Joseph Skariah, S/o.Late C.J.Skariah – Respondent
Versus
Chancellor Of Universities In Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) No. 26918 of 2022
Decided on : 17-11-2022
Kannur University Act, 1996 - Section 3(3), 14 - University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 - Regulation 3.11 - Whether inclusion of 5th respondent in Ext.P4 “Ranked List”, prepared and settled by 4th respondent Selection Committee is in order - When there was a doubt in mind of an Authority as an eminent Vice Chancellor, selection could not have been taken forward without it being resolved; though Court aware Registrar asserts that, thereafter, legal opinion, received from learned Standing Counsel and that of learned Advocate General were relied upon - Suffice to say, Vice Chancellor himself found room for doubt; and it was justified, as now found by Court. (Para 107).
Finding of the Court: “Experience of teaching” as specified in Regulation 4.1(II) of “UGC Regulations, 2018” has to be actual teaching experience and not something that can be inferred or construed, either by operation of law or on strength of executive orders or circulars. The post of an Associate Professor, being an extremely vital and important one in academic scheme, UGC found it justified to provide that only a person with requisite actual teaching experience could aspire to be directly recruited to it, particularly when other requirements for such a post are also extremely exacting - Leitmotif of arguments of 5th respondent, as Court, since she continued as a Teacher – within meaning of term, as available from Act - her activities must be construed to be “experience of teaching”, notwithstanding fact that she was not engaged in such during relevant period. This is precisely what UGC prohibits – they vehemently stipulating that a person ought to have had requisite real teaching experience, to be directly appointed as Associate Professor, so as to ensure excellence and highest standards in higher education system - “experience of teaching” can only be a real fact, and not a fiction or an inference. To paraphrase, unless a candidate is able to demonstrate real experience of teaching, as required by “UGC Regulations 2018”, he/she could not have had his/her application for direct appointment as Associate Professor, approved by Scrutiny Committee of the University, which is also a statutory one - Scrutiny Committee proceeded on certain assumptions, especially with respect to periods of service claimed by 5th respondent, while engaged as “DSS” and/or Co-ordinator of the “NSS”. Certainly, such activities may aid growth of a person as a good teacher; but that by itself, would not be sufficient, for being considered for direct appointment as an Associate Professor, in the absence of requisite “experience of teaching”.
Result: Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
Education is the fundamental block of life; it not its preparation, but it is life itself. As Joseph Addison said: “what sculpture is to a block of marble, education is to human soul”.
2. Teachers, therefore, are nation builders; and a good one instills hope and ignites imagination in students.
3. The golden words of Dr.S.Radhakrishnan rings loud: “Teacher should be the best minds in the country”. This is much more when it comes to Institutions of higher education.
4. It is obviously in the above hortative perspective that the University Grants Commission (hereinafter called the 'UGC' for short) brought out its Regulations relating to qualifications and manner of direct appointments to various teaching courses in Universities and Colleges, including Associate Professors.
5. Exacting provisions and stipulations have been made by the 'UGC', to which I will refer presently.
6. This Court is now called upon by the petitioner who is stated to be an Assistant Professor in Malayalam -to decide whether inclusion of the 5th respondent in Ext.P4 “Ranked List”, prepared and settled by the 4th respondent Selection Committee is in order.
7. Sri.George Poonthottam – learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.P.Santharam appearing for the petitioner, assailed inclusion of the 4th respondent in Ext.P4 on various grounds, namely:
b) The Selection Committee has acted capriciously, in including the 5th respondent, even though her academic score is woefully lower than what his client has achieved.
c) Alternatively, the 5th respondent is ineligible to be included in Ext.P4 because, she does not have either the service or the experience of teaching that are requisite under the “UGC Regulations, 2018”, after she acquired the essential qualification under it, namely “Doctor of Philosophy” (PhD).
8. Interestingly, as an adscititious submission, the learned Senior Counsel argued that Ext.P4 itself is inept and incompetent because it has been shown to be a “Provisional Ranked List”, prepared by the Selection Committee of the Syndicate of the University, but without the “physical verification of the original documents claiming academic qualifications having been done” (sic).
9. In support of his afore submissions, Sri.George Poonthottam – learned Senior Counsel, relied extensively on Regulation 4.1 (II) of the “UGC Regulations, 2018”, which enumerates the eligibility/educational qualifications required for a person to seek direct recruitment as an Associate Professor. He argued that, along with PhD and a Masters Degree with 55%, a candidate has to have a minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and/or research in an academic/research position, equivalent to that of an Assistant Professor; and asserted that, even going by the credentials presented by the 5th respondent, she has not achieved this in any manner whatsoever.
10. Sri.George Poonthottam then pointed out that the details of the credentials presented by the 5th respondent before the University along with her application, has been produced on record by them through Memo dated 08.11.2022, which shows that she has claimed various spells of service ? when she was a Lecturer on contract; while she was pursuing PhD Full Time as a student; when she was working as the Director of Student Services in the Kannur University; as also as an Assistant Director in some other organization, on deputation. The learned Senior Counsel argued that, therefore, even as per the aforesaid declarations, the petitioner's claim of having more than 11 years
While making appointments, Universities are bound by stipulations of UGC Regulations and cannot travel beyond it, even if respective State Legislations or Regulations are to speak to contrary.
Right to a fair trial has long been recognised as forming part of fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 of Constitution.
Point of Law : Central government had no authority to disagree with the recommendation of UGC.
Teaching experience claimed during Ph.D. studies is not valid unless it was active service without leave, impacting selection criteria for academic appointments.
The court emphasized the importance of correctly evaluating the teaching experience of the petitioners and upheld the principle that recruitment to public services should be held strictly in accordan....
The court affirmed the validity of the selection process for Assistant Professors and clarified that guest lecturer experience can't always be excluded for direct recruitment under regulatory guideli....
Teaching experience marks for Assistant Professor shortlisting invalid if claimed prior to essential qualifications (NET/SET/M.Phil/Ph.D) or based on unverified/dubious certificates; erroneous shortl....
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
