Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39375
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
DR.JITHA S.R – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 28472/2022
T.SANJAY SANIL KUMAR G. RAVEENDRAN K. MIDHUN R. K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC SAJITH KUMAR V. S.RADHAKRISHNAN T.RAMPRASAD UNNI S.M.PRASANTH ADITYA THEJUS KRISHNAN J.VISHNU VIVEK A.V. GODWIN JOSEPH PRANAV PRADEEP
Eligibility for academic positions must align with specific qualifications as per university guidelines, and selection committees have discretion in applying these standards.
Headnote:(A) University Grants Commission (UGC) Guidelines, 2018 - Appointment of Professors - The petitioner challenged the finding of 'None found suitable' for the post of Professor despite being the only candidate interviewed. The court found the petitioner ineligible due to lack of a relevant Ph.D. qualification, affirming that the university has discretion to apply its guidelines in determining suitability. (Paras 5, 9)
(B) Legal Standards for Eligibility - The court emphasized that the selection committee must provide reasons for its decisions, but this applies only when candidates possess relevant qualifications. (Paras 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a professorship but was deemed unsuitable as he lacked a Ph.D. in the relevant field of Public Administration, despite his claims of having a Ph.D. in Political Science.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner was not entitled to consideration for the post due to lack of relevant qualifications as per university guidelines.
Issues: The main issue was whether the endorsement of 'None found suitable' was justified given the petitioner's qualifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that eligibility for the post must align with the specific qualifications required by the university, and the selection committee's discretion in applying guidelines is upheld.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
(Dated this the 29th day of October, 2024)
The petitioner was an aspirant for appointment pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the 1st respondent herein to the post of Professor/Associate Professor /Assistant Professor. The petitioner applied as against the vacancy notified for the post of Professor/Associate Professor.
2. The petitioner was called for interview and Ext.P5 is the list of provisionally eligible candidates who were interviewed. Ext.P7 is the result published by the respondent University pursuant to the interview carried out. The petitioner points out that in Ext.P7 as regards the post of Professor, the finding is “ None found suitable”. The 4th respondent has been provided placement to the post of Associate Professor pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. It is in the above situation that, the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Ext.P7.
3. Sri. T.Sanjay, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has no claim towards the post of Associate Professor. It is further pointed out by Sri.S.Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the University that the 5th respondent who has been impleaded in his personal capacity is no more.
4. Heard Sri. Sanjay, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. T. Ramprasad Unni, the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent.
5. Sri. Sanjay, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the endorsement in Ext.P7 "None found suitable", when admittedly there were only 2 candidates who were called for interview, out of which the petitioner alone participated in the interview, is without any justification. He points out that, with reference to the notification and Ext.P7 that the results ought to have been with reference to the marks awarded in the interview and insofar as no marks are seen endorsed as against the petitioner's name, the further endorsement "None found suitable" in Ext.P7 cannot be sustained. He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and Others [(1979) 2 SCC 368] in support of his contention.
6. Per Contra, Sri.Ramprasad Unni, the learned Standing Counsel for the University, points out that, it was only because the petitioner was found not at all suitable for being considered to the post of Professor, in Ext.P7, such an endorsement was made. He also points out with reference to the averments in paragraph 5 of the counter afÏdavit filed by the 4th respondent that the petitioner’s Ph.D. was in Political Science and not in Public Administration, the subject to which the appointment was notified.
7. Sri. Sanjay would also refer to UGC Guidelines 2018 and contend that even if the Ph.D. is obtained in an allied/concerned subject, that is a sufÏcient qualification, in response to the contention of the 4th respondent in the counter afÏdavit referred to above.
8. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records.
9. The petitioner calls in question Ext.P7, only for the reason that endorsement with reference to the appointment of Professor in the department of Public Administration & Policy Studies was "None found suitable". I notice, with reference to the counter afÏdavit filed by the 4th respondent that the petitioner was not having a Ph.D. in the relevant field to which the appointment was sought for. The contention of Sri. Sanjay that he had a Ph.D. in the allied/relevant discipline, cannot be accepted, because the decision with respect to the applicability of the Guidelines, 2018 is to be made by the respondent University. The respondent University, having considered the qualifications, pointed out by the petitioner, has not felt fit to consider, since the appointment was in a totally different subject - Public Administration. That being so, the petitioner is not entitled for being considered with respect to the appointment to the post of Professor as per Ext.P1 notification.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on t
