SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J.
Dr. Mini.B., D/o Babu .T - Appellant 
Versus 
State Of Kerala - Respondents  
WP(C) No. 26405 of 2024
Decided on : 18-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. DIPU.R K.S.BAIJU DEVI KRIPA R. P.V.SARITHA VENUGOPAL DHANYA BABU NEETHU SASI ANSU SARA MATHEW
For the Respondent: BY ADVS. THOMAS ABRAHAM, STANDING COUNSEL S. KRISHNAMOORTHY, STANDING COUNSEL ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL T.U.SUJITH KUMAR BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL(B-38) RAJESH. K.RAJU SRI. PREMCHAND R. NAIR, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial review of selection processes for public employment is limited; courts should not interfere unless there are proven irregularities or mala fides.

Headnote:

(A) UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018 - Selection process for Assistant Professors - Petitioners, PhD holders, challenged selection process alleging manipulation and non-compliance with scoring rules - Respondents defended selection based on interview performance as per UGC guidelines. (Paras 1 - 4 , 8-10)

(B) Judicial Review - Courts generally avoid interfering in selection processes of public employment, recognizing the expertise of selection committees - Interference is limited to cases of illegality or mala fides. (Paras 13 , 12 .1)

Facts of the case:

Petitioners applied for Assistant Professor positions but were not selected despite superior qualifications, alleging manipulation in the selection process.

Findings of Court:

The selection process adhered to UGC Regulations, and no illegality was found in the conduct of the interview.

Issues: Whether the selection process was fair and compliant with UGC guidelines.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the selection process, emphasizing that judicial review does not extend to evaluating the merits of selection committee decisions unless there are proven irregularities.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(N. NAGARESH,J.)

[W.P.(C) Nos.26405, 27655 and 28376 of 2024]

The petitioners are aspirants for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Fathima Mata National College (Autonomous), Kollam. The petitioners state that after publishing a notification for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors in Hindi, Political Science and Commerce, respondents 6 and 7 conducted an interview and selection and appointments were made overlooking the superior merit and ability of the petitioners.

2. The petitioners state that all the petitioners are PhD holders and in spite of their superior educational qualification, they were not selected or appointed. The interview conducted at the instance of respondents 6 and 7 was not proper. The interview was manipulated in order to help the blue eyed boys of respondents 6 and 7.

3. The petitioners contended that the selection process should be based on awarding scores / marks as prescribed by the Rules. This was not done. Ext.P9 (in W.P.(C) No.26405/2024) has been issued without duly following the selection process. In the circumstances, Ext.P9 is liable to be quashed and directing respondents 1 to 5 to issue strict directions to respondents 6 and 7 to follow Ext.P10 Guidelines (in W.P.(C) No.26405/2024) while effecting the appointments.

4. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 6 and 7 and resisted the writ petitions. The Standing Counsel submitted that the selection was conducted in strict compliance of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018. As per the Regulations, 2018, the selection should be made on the basis of performance of the candidates in the interview only. This criteria has been followed by the University of Kerala which has issued order dated 09.09.2021, wherein also it has been stated that ranking / selection shall purely be on the basis of the marks obtained in the interview.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3, respective learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 4 to 7 and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

6. The grievance of the petitioners is that a selection has been conducted by the College Authorities, ignoring the superior educational qualification and eligibility of the petitioners. The petitioners would contend that they are all PhD holders and merit has been given a go-bye in the matter of selection.

7. Ext.P10 in W.P.(C) No.26405/2024 is the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018. Clause 4 of the Regulations, 2018 provides for direct recruitment. Clause 4.1 is related to direct recruitment for the Disciplines of Arts, Commerce, Humanities, Education, Law, Social Science, Sciences, Languages, Library Science, Physical Education and Journalism and Mass Communication. Clause 4.1 reads as follows:

“4.1 For the Disciplines of Arts, Commerce, Humanities, Education, Law, Social Science, Sciences, Languages, Library Science, Physical Education and Journalism and Mass Communication.

I. Assistant Professor:

Eligibility (A or B):

A.

i) A Master’s degree with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point-scale wherever the grading system is followed) in a concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university.

ii) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidates must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC or the CSIR, or a similar test accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET or who are or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top