The Syndicate of Calicut University can deny approval for teaching appointments based on adherence to merit and statutory regulations regarding qualifications and marks allocation.

1. The University of Calicut and its Syndicate Committee have filed this Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring that the Syndicate does not have any power to refuse approval to an appointment of a teacher in an aided College, interfering with the awarding of marks by the selection committee, even after finding that marks awarded to her by the selection committee for her Ph.D was contrary to the University Regulations.

2. Pursuant to a notification issued by Korambayil Ahamed Haji Memorial Unity Women's College, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors in English, the writ petitioner submitted her application. She was successful in the selection and was ranked 2nd in the rank list. She was appointed as Assistant Professor in English as per Ext. P2 order dated 22/06/2011. The University did not approve her appointment. She filed the writ petition challenging denial of approval to her appointment and seeking a declaration that she is entitled to be awarded 15 marks for her Ph.D, by the selection committee and for a direction to approve her appointment.

3. According to the University, the College had forwarded a proposal for approval of appointment of three Assistant Professors in English including that of the petitioner; in the select list dated 06/04/2011, the petitioner was ranked 2nd; on verification of the score sheet for interview, it was found that the petitioner was awarded 15 marks for her National Eligibility Test (NET) + Ph.D in Library Science contrary to the University regulations for appointment of teaching staff in the University; as the appointment was against the post of Assistant Professor in English, a Ph.D holder in English alone was entitled to 15 marks; because of this, the petitioner was wrongly ranked 2nd in the select list; otherwise she would have been ranked only 6th; the Syndicate therefore decided to seek clarification on this from the Principal of the College; thereafter a subcommittee of the Syndicate heard the Principal and Manager of the College and the Syndicate considered the matter thereafter and finally resolved not to approve the appointment of the writ petitioner.

4. The learned Single Judge held that the power of the Syndicate is confined to the verification of appointment with reference to the staff pattern fixed by the University and the qualification of the candidate appointed alone. According to the learned Single Judge, even though the petitioner was not entitled to 15 marks towards weightage, the selection was not liable to be interfered with, when there is no challenge against the rank list. The learned Single Judge held that the Syndicate was not expected to make an enquiry into the procedure followed in awarding the marks and to decline the approval. As there was no complaint against the appointment of the petitioner, it was not necessary to go into the marks awarded by the selection committee.

5. We heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and considered their contentions. The case of the writ petitioner is that she is having the requisite qualification for appointment to the post. Ph.D in the concerned subject is not a qualification prescribed for the post; none of the regulations provide that the 15 marks allocated for Ph.D and NET, can be awarded only if the Ph.D is in the concerned subject; Syndicate cannot go beyond what is provided in Statute 14 of the Calicut University First Statute, 1979; once the selection com