IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the employer's assessment of qualifications and equivalency is paramount, and judicial review should be limited to glaring illegalities or malafides in selection processes.

JUDGMENT :

NIAS C.P., J.

The writ petitioner challenges the selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Physics) conducted by the first respondent, Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT). The writ petitioner and the 6^th respondent were candidates for selection to the single post of Assistant Professor (Physics), notified as per Ext.P1 Notification issued by the University on 17.8.2015. The said post was reserved for Ezhavas/Thiyyas/Billavas (ETB) and the petitioner, who belonged to the Thiyya community which is classified as OBC, applied in response to Ext.P1 Notification, as per Ext.P2 application dated 14.9.2015, before the last date fixed for the receipt of applications, namely, 17.9.2015.

2. The qualifications fixed for the post in question are as follows:

i. Good academic record with 55% marks at the Master's Degree Level in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university.

ii. Besides, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET.

iii.Those candidates who are or have been awarded Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the UGC Regulations, 2009') shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor.

iv.NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Master's Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted.

3. The qualifications for the above post are laid down in Regulation 4.4.1 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, produced as Ext.P3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the UGC Regulations, 2010').

4. The 6^th respondent applied for the selection, as per Ext.P21 application dated 16.9.2015. The selection and appointment of the 6^th respondent is questioned on the following grounds:

i. That, the 6^th respondent did not claim that he was eligible for the exemption granted to those candidates who are or have been awarded Ph.D Degree in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2009 and in the absence of a claim as stated above, the 6^th respondent was not qualified and therefore, the candidature of the 6^th respondent ought to have been rejected at the threshold itself.

ii. That, the 6^th respondent did not produce an Equivalence Certificate of Ph.D. Degree Certificates awarded by the foreign university, namely, the University of Naples Federico II, as seen from Exts.P22 & P23, to that of the Ph.D. Degree in Physics awarded by the CUSAT or any of the Indian Universities established under a statute along with Ext.P21 application, under which the last date for applying was 17.9.2015, and going by the stipulation in the notification, late and defective applications ought to have been summarily rejected.

iii.That, the 3^rd respondent-Selection Committee permitted the 6^th respondent, who was ineligible to take part in the selection process, without scrutiny of the eligibility of the 6^th respondent.

iv.The absence of the claim of the 6^th respondent that he cleared the essential eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET and not producing any document to prove that Ext.P23 Ph.D. awarded to him from the foreign university is in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2009, he was not eligible to be included in the selection process.

v. The 'Course Work' in Physics for the award of Ph.D. being conducted by the 1^st respondent-University is entirely different and distinct from the course conducted by the foreign university and therefore, there was no room for declaration of 'equivalence' of a qualification obtained from another university as there can be a declaration of equivalence only b